patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!
Local Voices
Visual and Performing Artist, Human Rights Activist, Arts Educator, Non-aligned Observer

Might Makes Right (the Paradigm of Violence)

There is a paradigm in this country … and world … that holds that "might means right." This is the paradigm of militant thinkers and it purports, at its base, that positive solutions can come from killing.  The theory is that we can rid ourselves of our problems by shooting someone, by killing them. Or perhaps, at least, we can scare them away. The paradigm includes that extrajudicial killing, killing without the right to a trial, is not only necessary but is expedient and of great value. From the top down, in our culture, and in similar cultures, we see this belief played out in the affairs of each day.

The pro-gun people frequently wave the phrase, "Guns don’t kill. It's people that kill."

There is a bit of truth here ... so far, although this is rapidly changing, weapons are not autonomous — they require human operators.  The weak link in this chain of thought is, however, that guns are the machines people have come up with in order TO kill each other, and to do so most effectively. Guns are the tool of choice.  Their speed, their accuracy, their stopping power, their portability, their range, the ease with which one can conceal this weapon, make guns the ultimate weapon in today’s world.

Behind the gun is a person, however, as the enthusiasts point out. The question is, what sort of person is this? What is his or her motivation for carrying a gun? What do they intend to do with this killing machine? My position is, that there is a serious, pervasive, culture of violent thinkers in this country … further, that people who buy handguns or assault weapons, by and large, have a similar mindset regarding violence. I come to this conclusion in part by reading the threads of gun control blogs… a large number of respondents or bloggers believe that, when push comes to shove, if they have a gun in their hand, they are the justice and will do justice. In a phrase, "Might, makes right."

Another lunatic has struck innocent people with a gun. The police responded quickly, within 3 or 4 minutes, according to the press, but six people were dead and three wounded by then. This man was a skilled gun owner, and a vet. Given the fact that the victims were Sikhs in a Sikh temple, we can assume this man was a bigot, a racist and full of hate. That is the man behind the gun … a sick man, a merciless man. We will learn more about his weapon, but, suffice it to say, for now, it wasn’t a stick or a stone.

The man was part of the paradigm of violence that increasingly holds our world hostage. Dubbed, a domestic terrorist, as he was focused on attacking a group of people and was a US citizen, this man felt he was better than others, feared the presence of people who think differently than himself and, with his training in violence, decided to execute these people simply because they are who they are, are different than him…and that doesn’t meet with his agenda.

The President was quick to express his personal sorrow at "senseless violence."  I am deeply sorry to say I find that absurd coming from a man who spearheads the drone program and who personally decides to kill people on a regular basis, knowing full well that innocent people will also be harmed.  Anyone who has a computer can figure out quickly that drones, while having many tactical advantages, have killed hundreds of children and probably thousands of innocent adults in their deployment. They are not winning's OK for the President to kill innocent people who are different than us, but its senseless for a mentally ill man to do so. The paradigm is flexible.

I believe guns need to be better controlled, that serious training should accompany permits and that, in general, the arms industry should be regulated … 70 percent of the weapons used by drug cartels are produced in the U.S. This means that the fantastic profits of this industry come to a large extent from vicious criminals … people involved in killing our own DEA agents, in smuggling drugs to your streets, etc. This is one example. Is this honorable? Something to take pride in?  Is this a business in need of some regulation? I believe the proliferation of this sort of gun is something to monitor, to restrict, and to do all we can to curtail.

The larger issue, however, is the paradigm of violence. I have a rejoinder to the “Guns don’t kill … its people that kill,” maxim. It is this:

"Guns do not make security nor do they bring peace. It is people that bring both."

 The approach to take is not a one-point action … more restrictive laws for hand guns and other people killers.  It must be multi-faceted and, to my mind, should include strong education against the use of weapons to solve problems. There has been a lot of headway on curbing the bullying of kids in schools with school programs that delve deeply into this serious issue. The same could be true with handguns. Bullying has become stigmatized and the people who turn in bullies now are not seen as "chickens," or worse. Education could start to turn this boat around. That education can be public and private, school based but also, critically, coming from our houses of worship.

Where, in all of these recent events, is the Church on the topic of violence? Where are the leaders of the main religions … and why don’t they lead in terms of speaking out against violence, racism, bigotry and other forms of hatred? This boggles my mind. It is the paradigm we must change over time if we are to ever have a more peaceful planet. We have to learn that physical might and economic might do not necessarily make right. We have to learn that to safeguard the “least of these” we must evolve in our methods, exceed the myopia of the past and develop a new paradigm that includes “justice for ALL.”

In short, in order to move from a paradigm of might makes right (violence as a solution) to a paradigm of cooperation, respect for our interdependence, and real justice for all, we can not live as we have lived. We must change. We can not be at ease in a country that supports its economy by warring against small countries, by strong arming them economically, by indebting them to amounts they can not repay and then forcing our will upon them politically. We can not model the culture of violence. Our headlong push into drone warfare, and further…into autonomous killing machines, must be harnessed. We must stop torturing prisoners and must remove this from protocol. We must study the psychology of violence, look at the horrific history, recognize our guilt in promoting the same and begin to develop new education to move from this medievalism. 

Many say this is impossible and relegate themselves to a world in which conflicts are perpetual and violence has replaced diplomacy. Most of these are members of the strongest countries in the world…strong from a military standpoint.  I believe that each of us must live with himself or herself however, and that, in this issue, possibly more than most, there is no mid-ground. To accept the status quo, in the case of this paradigm and the consequences is to be on the side of violence.

Maybe living for peace will not change the whole world quickly, but the small changes made will all be improvements. Communities will see that they cant fear new groups, people of different faiths or practices….and will teach their children not to fear, not to hate. Schools can speak up against gun violence. Letters can be sent to congressmen. Study circles can form. Peaceful resolution can be upheld as a virtue in our culture as distinct from violent solutions with overwhelming military force.

 

 

PS.  Profound condolences to the Sikh community for their great loss this past week.  May we all look for ways to live in unity and true brother and sisterhood. Only people can bring peace. 

Lyle Ruble

8:05 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012

@Brian Carlson...What a wonderful and inspiring piece. It is my deepest desire that people read this and reflect on the truth of the message. As you write so eloquently, education from the home, to the school, to the sanctuary and national policy is the only way to begin a trend leading to the end of violence as the first option.

Thank you my friend.

Reply

J. B. Schmidt

12:53 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Good Piece.

I have two thoughts that I think challenge some of your notions.

1) Since the beginning of known history, men have said that a peaceful existence can be created through education, wisdom or respect for your fellow man. Yet, there is no point in history when this has ever materialized. In fact, nations have always gravitated toward might. This is because, while you can be peaceful, you can't control the actions of your neighbor. How do anticipate ensuring peace today when it has never happened int he past?

2) The Swiss make gun ownership mandatory. Yet, they have been a peaceful nation. While their natural fortification has aided them greatly; Hitler was unsure of success because he knew the men were all armed and ready to fight. That would go against your theory on might makes right. Not to mention countries with some of the strictest gun control laws, still have gun violence. The mass shooting in Norway is a prime example. Gun violence in Australia would be another.

Every one wants peace. However, your ability for a peaceful existence only goes as far as the person standing next to you. The randomness of the Sikh shooting proves that point. We cannot rid the world of evil by to continually punishing the good people through stiffer restriction when the bad people have open access to guns.

Full peace in any society is a pipe dream and an impossibility.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

2:44 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

JB.... On point one...we need to move away from black and white thinking here. We have neither had total peace nor total violence consistently throughout history, cross culturally, internationally... No matter how we slice it. Think relatively here. Certainly then, when the world is slogging through a world war....things are relatively less peaceful. When, on the other hand, the conflicts are brushfires by comparison, we have relatively more peace. So how do we move towards more peace...not perfect peace? That should be everyone's question. Guns will not get us there. Wars will not bring lasting peace. They bring temporary submission, huge suffering on all sides, and deep resentments. You throw out the proverbial baby when you say...well there has never been peace before....there has been peace...not everywhere and at all times...but if two people are cooperating in a positive fashion...that is peace. When leaders operate in a bipartisan manner, that is peace. When countries collaborate towards healthy positive goals...that is peace as well. Oppositely, two people ranting at each other about their differences, neither bothering to listen to the other... This works against peace. So I believe it's a sliding scale here and the question is, "what actions and what words as well, take us towards more peace and less violence?"

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

2:44 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

JB... I am not a historian so I am not well versed on Switzerlands success at staying out of wars. I think that, for centuries, as you say...the natural challenge of attacking the country, made such designs imprudent and not worth the effort. The extent to which the armed citizenry curtailed any designs Hitler may have had on Switzerland is moot.... Maybe it seemed strategically unimportant to him. Plus...he had no hesitance in attacking Russia while he was fighting the rest of Europe, the UK and the US. Not a rational man I think...so...did the Swiss small arms frighten him?
The Swiss also held alot of people's money and their neutrality was well advertised. So...why attack them? The shooting in Norway by itself only means that total peace may never happen. It also means that guns kill quickly...how about the murder rate per capita in Norway? What does that suggest?
You bog down when you insist that peace is a worthless pursuit unless it can be turned on simultaneously everywhere in an instant. That isn't my pipe dream. But choose peace in this conversation, choose it in this situation, try it in that challenge... Teach peace...not fluff...not pleasantries but real conflict negotiation... And begin to raise a paradigm that cooperation, inclusivity, interdependence... All vital to the continued existence of this planet... require peaceful thinking and actions.

joe siebers

12:53 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Yeah whatever Brian, you chose to be a victim and not protect your family and property and let us make our own decision. Good luck with this sophistry and platitudes when you are eventually assaulted, I am sure the bad guys will appreciate the thoughts you have have in regard to being a pacifist.

Maybe you and Lyle can form a group hug to stop violence.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

1:35 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Joe, I have been assaulted three times in my life and in all cases, keeping my head, not showing fear, and being calm, prevented me from being seriously harmed.

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

9:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Joe, I do protect my family but, unlike you, I do not see protection solely in terms of a reactionary. I do not see my family solely as my immediate blood relatives nor as the handful of people I live with. Taking normal precautions, I have avoided being harmed in most cases....and, as well, have avoided losing property in most cases. Had I had a gun in hand in the three situations I was physically threatened, the situation might well have been ramped up... And I might have become a person who had killed another human being...in over reaction, when options worked fine. I might be in jail for that. Other innocent people might have been harmed. The outcomes are
not so predictable as you may think.

I didn't fight in a war I believed was entirely unethical... It is not just platitudes with me Joe... The line between the bad guys and good guys, when the action is killing people... is far from distinct in many cases. Are people in a Pakistani wedding party bad guys, and is our President a good guy when he kills Yemeni, Somali, or Pakistani civilians? I don't think so. Violence is violence... And extrajudicial violence, quite often gets way out of hand.

GearHead

12:53 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Brian, I'm confused. Your byline bio states you are a "non-aligned observer." Yet a recent Patch article has "Brian Carlson, liberal blogger" as one of the "influential Wisconsin Democrats" responding to the poll
http://mountpleasant.patch.com/articles/democratic-insiders-see-thompson-as-baldwin-s-toughest-opponent

Which is it? What am I missing?

As for your blog, it is just more of the same clap-trap of more laws, more restrictions. "More restrictive laws...should include strong education against the use of weapons to solve problems" falls on its face in the presence of logic, of course. Memo to Brian: The bad guys aren't interested in your sense of fairness, education nor restraint. And I might add those cartels received their weapons courtesy of the Obama administration. Have you forgotten what "fast and furious" was about? Lyle might pat you on the back, but the rest of us see another big whiff from the non-aligned one.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

1:35 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Gearhead, If you follow my blogs or comments, you will see that I am as opposed to the violence condoned by liberals as I am to that supported by your folks. Violence is not a means to solving problems...it always creates more of the same. This is historically borne out. As to labels...I find them meaningless. If an editor calls me a liberal blogger...that is how he or she sees me. I think those words are simplistic to the point of signifying nothing. Your larger point reminds me that many look at everything in terms of only the present moment.... Here iis a man with a gun in his hand...he starts shooting... now try to educate him a about peace.
What I am talking about is a move in another direction that obviously takes time. We do need police forces.... Armies interest me less and, some countries have disbanded their militaries. But the paradigm shift takes time, education, thoughtfulness, mindfulness...development, reinforcement....

To choose how to live in a purely reactionary mode....is to choose to repeat the past indefinitely....the Hatfield/McCoy dynamic. To envision a better future for all and to lay plans, develop strategies, pursue them... To act toward a better...NOT PERFECT...but progressively better world.... is proactive...not reactive. It will get us there.

Chris Wade

9:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

A question for the folks that complain about there being too many laws and regulations: What is the 'right amount' of laws?

Reply

paul hruz

9:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

@Brian you say you were assulted three times maybe they see you as an easy target,if it was known you stopped the first one by pulling out your gun and stopping it maybe the next two would have never happened.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

11:23 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Three unrelated assaults, in place and time. Guns were not necessary and would likely have ramped up the interchange.

Comment_arrow

$$andSense

10:14 pm on Sunday, August 12, 2012

Brian just stared them down. Check his postings from early this year. His stare has the power of Superman to disarm people without firing a shot. Unlike my experience years ago in NJ with having to get physical to get the point across about not being a victim.

Dave Koven

9:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Brian Carlson...Excellent article. We have to start somewhere or we'll never evolve.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

11:23 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Yes Dave... And we have to think long term....

Kelly

9:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

I don't believe that more gun regulation is the answer, I think we need to look at causation first.

More importantly, there is a group in SE Wisconsin, Peace Learning Circles, that has workshops for schoolchildren (starting as young as kindergarten) and community programs promoting non-violence, acceptance, and conflict resolution skills. Their website is www.peacelearningcircles.org

Actually, with the bullying problems in the schools, I'm surprised that more parents are not requesting that the school administrators get this program in their elementary and middle schools.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

11:23 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

This is one great example. However we can't expect our children to believe their teachers if we are supporting wars, official, proxie or undeclared but actual (Yemen, Somalia, etc.), and if our leaders are all speaking and acting from militant paradigms. We have to see what we have been up to, what we have supported...consciously or not, and we have to do our best to speak out against this violence. As our children are educated and grow in ways of peace, they will not be beguiled by the smoke and mirrors of political spin. Eventually there will be change.

Richard Head

9:48 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

Obama certainly believes MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and murders people World Wyde in such diverse places as Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya (60,000 murdered with 30,000 Bombs dropped), Pakistan etc. etc.

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW8Bk-o5LnU

Let me know when Obama has his Terror Drones, Hellfire Missiles and Clusterbombs taken away....

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

11:23 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012

I am sorry to have to agree with this. I voted for Obama, hoping he was a man of peace....not a saber rattler like McCain.... But he has proven, most overtly with his drone programs, to be part of the violence... La Violenca. He either was driven to this, changed his mind... Or perhaps always was ready to move this way....it doesn't matter. Drones have killed hundreds of children alone. They have raised countless numbers of future enemies. They rain death in the name of the USA.

Comment_arrow

Richard Head

6:51 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

You are a good honest man.

Violence is not partisan.

The Dragon (government of US) speaks "Peace" But only brings war, death and destruction - World Wyde. The people are - as the government is.

Brian Carlson

7:54 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Richard, I have to think that a large problem is that the public is not aware of the scale and or nature of the violence our government conducts. Simple example....how many people know anything about the School of the Americas (now called WHINSEC..in order to distance it from it's history)? Good, moral Americans, are perpetually astonished to hear that so many countries hate us or hate our policies that have adversely affected their countries. SOA is a perfect example...a university in Fort Bennington Georgia, TEACHING assassination, torture, repression...to thousands of Latin American military personal for decade on decade! On your dime and mine of course and in the name of DEMOCRACY! But what woman or man on the street knows anything about it? The next question is, "Do we want to know?" that's critical.... But I believe that, difficult as such enlightenment is... People really do not want to live in a way that routinizes the exploitation of others....we don't want the blood on our hands, the bones in our backyard. So...education...starting with conversation..is vital. Education including media attention but not relying on standard media as their corporate leadership will not present all truth.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

2:07 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Brain when you said on your dime and mine I saw a necessary response. The School of the Americas must be de-funded, evicted and of course exposed. I did not know of it and will do research after this post before I contact those who can help me stop this sort of education. I will also be checking with our local schools, churches, groups and neighbors to see how we can colaborate to increase education on conflict resolution etc.

Brian Carlson

7:55 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

And where...I ask again...are our religious leaders weighing in on these issues of flagrant violation of human dignity and the sanctity odd human life? We need to hear from the Church, the Synagogues, Mosques, Houses of Worship...etc. Turning swords into plough shares is a huge multiple tiered and global task....

Reply

Neil John Smith

9:12 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Great concept in theory, will never work in reality. Theories are great and fun to talk about. But a lot of the time theories don't work in nature. Humans are tribal. It's hard coded in our DNA. Violence is a part of human nature. We can reduce it somewhat, but as long as human's exist it will always be with us. And you can't compare Switzerland and the America. America is diverse, and diversity comes with a hefty price tag.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

9:30 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Neil A....I disagree that it is our nature to be violent. For most of human history, we as a species lived pretty much in peace and harmony with each other. This was our ancestry as hunter-gatherers. The cost to the survival of the group when a member is lost through any means was just too high, and for the most part conflict was avoided. It wasn't until cultivation came, pushed by changes in the physical environment, that humans began warring with any kind of regularity. My point is that our warring is dependent on our social organization and the need to protect what we perceive as our resources. Until we all recognize that we are of one family and are capable of non-violent interactions. We did before for most of our existence and we have the inner capability to do it again. In this case to achieve peace, nurture can overcome our nature.

Comment_arrow

jeff gerardo

9:44 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll yeah we humans are just a bunch of fun loving hippies, we just need to hug more, thats the answer Lyle. Thank God that folks like Lyle are not in charge of protecting us.

Comment_arrow

CowDung

10:05 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

I tend to agree with Lyle to the extent that it is not human nature to be violent. We do however, seem to live in a society that does have an unhealthy appreciation for violence. There are other nations on this earth that do a much better job then we do at living peacefully with one another--it is possible. I don't think that banning guns or any other weapon is the solution. We need to change our collective attitudes toward violence and learn to peacefully co-exist with one another...

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

10:19 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Neil... If what you suggest is true, then Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Baha'u'llah, among the founders of the largest religions, were deluded.... Religion has no purpose, morality is purely situational, and might does make right. That world I do not want to live in.

Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

2:11 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Tribal is good when we realize we are all parts of one large tribe. That is one place religion comes in as most teach a message of love and forgiveness. Love thy neighbor or some other wording. A tribe protects their own so we need to see all as us not them.

Denise Konkol

9:34 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

I would like to say as well that I'm not sure what survey of churches was done for this article, but my church (I am Catholic) has always had a message of nonviolence from where I sit in the pew. To say that churches are silent on this issue is inaccurate.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

10:28 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Denise... The catholic church has had a very mixed history. Latin American Catholics have been very vocal peace activists... Romero comes to mind.... At the. Same time they have colluded with dictators at times... (Argentine Dirty War for one example). what I am asking for is activism... Here we are, supposedly a Judeo-Christian based nation... But we are the ultimate Empire and sustain this through global violence and economic warfare. Christ clearly would not condone torture, drone strikes, educating terrorists, economic warfare.... Etc. How do the great majority of "believers" in any faith... Sit by and let this go on without comment? I don't get it. Moreover why aren't religious leaders more vocal on the issue of national violence? Abortion is a hot topic... They weigh in on this. But they are silent, for the most part, on pre emptive attacks on other countries, drone warfare, the actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan that clearly are killing civilians. Why is this so?

Comment_arrow

CowDung

2:03 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Brian:

Has the Catholic church truly been silent, or have you just not been listening?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html

"Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a "crime against peace."

The unwavering stance has made the pope one of the most visible opponents of war in current circumstances, and a rallying point for peace groups and politicians who seize on his words counseling against war."

http://www.dailypaul.com/220228/dr-ron-paul-and-the-pope-both-agree-that-the-war-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-are-not-just-wars

"The Pope agrees with Dr. Ron Paul that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not Just Wars."

http://www.france24.com/en/20120703-pope-bring-message-peace-lebanon-visit

"Pope Benedict XVI will bring a message of peace for the Middle East on a three-day trip to Lebanon in September, the Vatican said Tuesday, amid rising tensions due to the conflict in neighbouring Syria."

Neil John Smith

10:03 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Lyle...."For most of human history, we as a species lived pretty much in peace and harmony with each other". Are you kidding me? Do you live on planet earth? Or a different planet. Are you human. I know Mars is a pretty peaceful place judging by the pictures I've seen coming back from the Mars Curiosity Rover. But haven't seen any pics of humans yet. So as of right now assuming it is a peaceful planet.

Read this article:
http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/cavemen.htm

Like I said...we can try to REDUCE it. Try to protect yourself and your loved ones. But as long as there is more then 1 human on this planet, there will always be violence.

Reply

Neil John Smith

10:06 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Lyle.....do you want to meet and discuss this some more during a nice leisurely walk? I'm thinking we could meet downtown Milwaukee on Burleigh street around 11:00 tonight. We could walk around and chat. I'm sure nobody will bother us.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

10:08 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Neil A...Sure, I'm game if you are. Burleigh is not that far from where I live.

Comment_arrow

CowDung

10:13 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Are you using the conditions that exist on Burleigh at night as evidence that humans are violent by nature? If it were truly an issue of human nature, you be just as hesitant to stand at the corner of Oakland and Capital at 11 pm, (or at noon for that matter), yet that likely is not the case.

Neil John Smith

10:21 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@CowDung........Your argument makes no sense. It's easier to get away with violence in certain areas and at certain times.

Reply
Comment_arrow

CowDung

10:24 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

...but if it is human nature to be violent, then there would be no worry about 'getting away with violence', as society would accept it as a normal activity.

Besides, it would be just as easy to get away with violence at 11 pm in both of the locations mentioned...

Neil John Smith

10:25 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Lyle.....I was just kidding. I would never venture there at night. Odds are too great of something bad happening to me. I would like to venture to your planet some day though. Sounds really nice.

Plus I'm reading the article about peaceful human nature tonight:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/homicides.html

Reply

Neil John Smith

10:33 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@cowdung....ugggh. you're frustrating. Human nature and society are 2 different things. Society expects non-violence.....some humans can't suppress that qualification. Who hasn't gotten in some sort of altercation in their life? Except Lyle, but he is excused because he lives on a different planet.

Reply
Comment_arrow

CowDung

10:41 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Correct, society and human nature are 2 different things. Human nature reflects a desire for non-violence. Most people prefer to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner.

Society is the issue. The social situation at 11th and Burleigh is very different than that at Oakland and Capital.

Neil John Smith

10:39 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Brian....ugggh. you're frustrating. Did you not read the "We can reduce it somewhat" comment I made...that's what religion (Christ, Buddha, etc...) tries to do...problem is. People don't live it 24x7. They go to services...pray and all that theatrics and then leave and forget it. The ol' practice what you preach phrase. Some of the biggest hypocrites I've met throughout life are religous.

Reply

Neil John Smith

10:46 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Brian....and yes Brian...I'm really sorry to break this to you....morality is purely situational. This is the world you live in. Only hope is to try and change it in small increments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

12:44 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Neil.... Many here propose that we cannot change... That it is human nature to be violent...period. I agree with you. Improve each day. Raise consciousness. Educate in peace. Work with all facets of society to find more just manners of interacting, more humane ways to live and more peaceful methods for conflict resolution when it occurs. Violence is violence however. The edge between good violence and bad violence is normally drawn by those doing the talking.

Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

8:01 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

@Neil A....Morality is not situational but culturally relative. All organized groups have a moral structure. When searching for universal moral principles most look to shared specific moral principles such as you shouldn't murder. But, that isn't even universal. The only universal principles are those that promote individual and communal survival. Therefore, organizing into communities, which promote and maintain individual survival, is our best survival strategy. Morality are the rules by which the community is maintained and continuing order is achieved. Changes to order becomes threatening because it introduces uncertainty to continued survival.

One must educate the individual and community that pursuing the steps to peace enhances the chance of continued survival. Eventually violent outliers will be forced out by a community in favor of stability. Anabaptist groups are a fine example of this phenomena.

Jeff

10:46 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Interesting article as usual, I certainly agree with your foreign policy perspective and much of the education. I would add to the education of non-violent resolutions, the education of weapons/fighting, how to use, and properly respect such powerful & dangerous tools, understand their consequences. Along side a very thorough, early starting and continuous education of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, to better define why weapons are so important to the people. I do not like guns particularly, and hope that I never need to use them other than in training, but as long as the gov has em, we better darn well have em too. To say that the general public needs to disarm first is precisely backwards, not that you said that, but that is generally what more/any gun regulation/confiscation effects. First governments of the world need to shake hands and completely disarm themselves and end imperialism, demilitarize. Disarmament of nuclear weapons, to pistols. Then all branches of gov and gov agencies disarm. Then the people of the states can disarm. The general citizenry is the last group that should be disarming. Why? Because libido dominandi is what most people in political offices suffer from. But this proper process of disarmament is so unlikely, it is comical. Perhaps someday down in the distant eons of human evolution this may happen, but human beings are so, so far from that.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

12:53 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Jeff...glad you found this interesting. One thought relative to this idea that the populace must stay armed to be able to deal with a potentially despotic government:
I don't think the populace has a chance in a throw down, all the more so as we move into a world policed and soldiered by robots. Even now the firepower is so stacked in the governments favor and the psychological warfare is tilted their way. One in every fifty soldiers right now is, reportedly, a robot. This is changing by geometric proportion. The plans include autonomous killing machines...preprogramed to make the kill selections. These are merciless, relentless machines, zero compassion, zero concern for self preservation in the sense we understand. They don't get PTSD. They don't need sleep or food. They will out perform humans. How will the good ole boys keep up? A lot of people say well low tech went a long way in Iraq and Afghanistan.... But not against drones and robots.

You can't win an arms race against the USA. It's been tried by serious competition.

Comment_arrow

Jeff

8:13 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

@Carlson - That is an interesting thought indeed(arms escalation) and has certainly occurred to me in wrestling the ideas of reversing the radical unfair advantage out in the match over peoples freedom vs the tyranny of gov oligarchs. And my own principles shift very little with this thought in that the arms race operates largely on fear, but for one to not succumb to arsenal bullyism, it's important not to forget out-numbering, out-gunning and out-machining may be overcome by education, ingenuity, and strategy. I would not fear or necessarily partake in the race or escalation of weaponry numbers and/or sophistication, including robots. But I would not forget that even robots have vulnerability. The odds certainly don't look good, but how ever I'm forced into the defensive of natural liberty, I'm certainly going to do whatever I can to resist the oppressors. And I'm talking about defense measures here, with a last resort of violence. Any initiation of violence, 'preemptive' violence, or coercion should be illegal, and is illegal by my own personal code.

Comment_arrow

Jeff

1:50 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012

@Brian - just read an article today by Daniel Suarez, reminded me of the programmed autonomous killing machines you mentioned, and relates all this madness and escalation to an opened 'Pandora's Box', certainly an applicable moniker: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/08/23/isaac-asimov-warned-us-about-combat-drones/

Jeff

10:47 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Freedom is paramount to peace, and/or go hand in hand. That is that peace is not achieved via war, but rather protected by the gun/weapon. And I don't mean protection from your neighbor, I mean protection from people in power, encroaching on your freedom. They need to be shown the whip before the flogging, and hopefully that's enough to tame the real beast.

Reply

oak creek resident

10:50 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

Easy to hate violence, the drone program, et al. But when you have the weight of the free world on your shoulders, things are probably not so black and white.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

1:01 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

I may seem hard on the President. I am saddened that he has chosen extensions of war. I couldn't fill his shoes.... But what is the concept you have there of this "free world." Name the countries you mean here. we grow up on phrases like these and I wonder how examined they are. Democracy, Freedom, Liberty... All wonderful abstractions but am I free if I have to kill others to live as I do? Innocent others? A I free if my economic prosperity comes at the price of the suffering of others... The impoverishment of others? Is the free world simplythe people we like? Do you mean those who kowtow to our massive economic power? Who does the President represent? Is this a government of the people, by the people and for the people... And if so...why is it that the candidate with the most money wins?

James R Hoffa

11:19 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Brian -

Nicely written blog entry!

However, I disagree with your characterization of guns as "the machines people have come up with in order TO kill each other, and to do so most effectively." You state:

"Their speed, their accuracy, their stopping power, their portability, their range, the ease with which one can conceal this weapon, make guns the ultimate weapon in today’s world."

All of these truths also make them the most humane weapon of choice, does it not? For example, if Page wanted to take out as many Sikh's as he possible could, he would have used a high yield incendiary device, or bomb, and taken out the entire building and all the lives in it. The same can be said of Holmes or any other mass shooter in history. An arsonist could kill far more people with a simple match.

Instead, by using guns, their rampage was somewhat limited to a relatively small number of causalities compared to what the bloodbath could have potentially been.

Because of the accuracy of guns, they can be used as non-lethal weapons of defense. A shot to the arms, legs, or other non-vital areas of the body probably wouldn't kill a person but would typically be enough to stop someone who was intending to do you or others harm.

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

11:23 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

"70 percent of the weapons used by drug cartels are produced in the U.S. This means that the fantastic profits of this industry come to a large extent from vicious criminals"

And prescription meds are the most unlawfully abused narcotics in this country today. How do you stop criminals from committing crimes without infringing upon the freedoms of the righteous? It's a balancing act to which is there no absolute right or wrong answer. The determined will always find a way to do what they're intent to do anyway, so why not error on the side of personal freedoms?

As to your premise in general, you may want to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

1:04 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

I think guns are more popular..than.. Let's say...the OK bombers bags of fertilizer. Are they humane? Is extrajudicial killing with a facile weapon humane?? I don't think so. Why are firing squads out of favor as methods of execution?

Bren

11:25 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

A wonderful article Mr. Carlson! I think our great problem is that our culture revolves around money and not people. Television is a prime example of an opportunity gone wrong. If TV had been segregated from the beginning (or 1950s) what a difference could have been made. Seeing people as people, not as "types" would have paved the way for understanding. But TV programming has and always will be filler for paid commercials. Programs target specific shopping markets and so are the commercials. And TV has an enormous impact on people of the full socio-economic spectrum in this country.

The best thing we can all do, as a baby step, is to try to give everyone a chance to make their own individual first impression instead of falling back on stereotypical compartmentalization/dismissal.

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

11:50 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Bren -

You have a very low perception of your fellow man, don't you? Nothing but easily influenced sheep, trained to be obedient to the corporate masters!

Except for those who know and understand the truth about ALEC, of course ;-)

Comment_arrow

Bren

2:28 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

TV invades our homes and augments and even dominates "the tone." It becomes a social ice-breaker and a time-consumer. It is the guest that doesn't leave.

Mr. Hoffa, I can't speak for anyone else but I was raised to be a good guest to the planet. That is to say, add to the environment I am in, be a good guest of the planet. Ignoring other guests, being unkind to other guests, showing favoritism; this is not being a good guest. I do think that's part of the trouble; when wrong things are said and done we fall back on training and "ignore" unpleasantness in hopes that it rights itself. But there are times when it's necessary to stand up to the status quo.

Getting along doesn't mean denying one's own opinions, beliefs, views; it means accepting other viewpoints. One should do one's best to persuade if felt necessary, but trying to accomplish goals by force is to lose. History demonstrates this repeatedly. Even during our own American history, the decision was made by the Colonials to treat prisoners of war with dignity and respect. By so doing, they made converts of many British and mercenary POWs. Conversely, treatment of nonwhite populations such as Native and African Americans led to different outcomes.

What do you consider a good guest?

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

3:43 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Agreed that TV helps to set a tone... Much like the old morality plays people went to for entertainment... The moral on many of the shows is essentially... The lone ranger... An individualwhotakes law into his or her own hands, exceeds or ignores protocol.. Again...might makes right. One person judge, jury and executioner.

James R Hoffa

11:54 am on Friday, August 10, 2012

"Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion 'violence never solves anything' is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay... They pay with their lives and their freedom."

Reply

Johnny Blade

12:44 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Governments throughout time have killed more people than anything else .. I say we limit, or put reasonable restrictions on government .. Hmmm for some reason this sounds familiar .. Now where have a heard that before

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

1:20 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

JB... A point you and I can agree on!

Greg

1:07 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Brian, The society that you propose would first and foremost require personal responsibility, then we could whittle down our laws into a few simple rules and BAM, you have peace.

Hoe your row, sweep your side of the street...

Reply

Brian Carlson

1:12 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Tell me what violence has solved. It breeds more of the same James. You can get a short term solution.... "I want this guy to go away," but there is a larger picture and a long range effect that is negative. Has the death penalty prevented anyone from perpetrating death penalty acts? Has any war been the war to end all wars? Violence...and mind you we are talking mainly about extrajudicial violence here....begets anger, suffering, and eventually more violence as people succumb to the notion that "this is just the way it is." tell me what the heck you are talking about with your quote...and who made the statement to begin with.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

1:14 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Again...the definition of my freedom necessitating someone else's death is really a murky area. How free am I if must kill other humans to call myself free?

Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

1:39 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Unless you can get everyone to agree to peace simultaneously, and actually live pursuant to such agreement made, there will be violence in this world. You can either respond to it, or end up dead or a slave. Unfortunately, that is "just the way it is."

Where did peace get the Burmese? Millions dead. Where did a passive culture get the South Vietnamese? Millions dead. Where did peace get the Orthodox Jews in Russia under Stalin? Millions dead. Such examples are endless throughout human history, are they not?

If a conquering force were to invade our nation for whatever reason, or an extermination force such as jihadists, are you saying that you'd voluntarily become a slave to the conquers or a victim to the exterminators just to uphold your principles of personally living a peaceful existence? What good are such principles if you, and all the other peace is the only way crowd, are wiped out by those who would use violence to accomplish their own desires?

Forceful violence has been used to accomplish a lot of good things. William Wallace, this country, ridding the world of Hitler, etc all never would have happened had it not been for forceful violence.

And we've even evolved - just the threat of such forceful violence and mutually assured destruction has prevented another large scale display of violence from occurring in the last 60+ years.

The quote Hoffa posted above is from Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers (1997):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU

Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

1:50 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@JRH....Gandhi and MLK Jr. come to my mind. There is such a thing as passive resistance.

Comment_arrow

Greg

1:53 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Hoffa, You say "unless you can get everyone to agree to peace simultaneously". What should happen if we get everyone in the world to agree, except one person? Be honest...

Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

2:19 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Lyle -

Passive resistance only works if you're dealing with people that aren't willing to use lethal force / violence against you. You think that Gandhi's and MLK Jr.'s passive resistance would have worked against someone like Adolf or Attila or Genghis or jihadists or ...

@Greg -

That one person would be the most powerful person in the world. That's a scary scenario!

Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

2:39 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@JRH...Seems to me that both Gandhi and MLK Jr. made the ultimate sacrifice for peace. Also, Hitler, Attila, et al were not people of peace. Hitler died by his own hand and Attila died in his wedding bed. We all have a choice to violence or not.

Comment_arrow

Greg

3:38 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

"We all have a choice to violence or not."
That is only half true.

Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

4:48 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Lyle -

"Also, Hitler, Attila, et al were not people of peace."

Ya think???

But suppose that the world didn't react to Hitler's forceful violence with forceful violence, instead choosing a path of passive resistance or eventual compliance? Would you be alive today? Would there be any non-white people alive today? How much different would our lives be? Was the reaction to forceful violence with forceful violence not effective in that case? Wasn't the overall impact of the forceful/violent retaliation to Hitler's actions positive?

Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

5:29 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@JRH... I am not so principled that I would not raise a hand in the defense of others or myself. Like so many others, I have been to war and understand the tragedy inflicted on both the enemy and ourselves. At times, I miss the brotherhood of my brothers in arms because you're never so close to others until you have put your life on the line for them and they for you.

I find it is well within reason that for many of us who faithfully and honorably served, that we would pursue peaceful means to resolve conflicts. I guess that is why I can't support the notion of "my country, right or wrong".

I look at the innocents that were lost before and during WW II and think how different the world might have been if the conflagration of war had been avoided. As most historians agree, the Second World War was nothing more than the second stage of the First World War. WW II could have been avoided if key variables leading to war had been averted after WW I. It is the quest for power, wealth and control are the variables that lead to war. Just as it has been said; old men start the wars and young men fight and die in them. Patriotism absent of peaceful intent is nothing more than extreme nationalism. Fascism and soviet style communism depended on nationalism to be the seedbed for growth, growing the evil weeds of human suffering.

Fred van der Wal

1:58 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

To Brian Carlson:
A excellent article indeed,Myself coming from a European country and the idea to own guns among the public was something that totally didn't exist.
Today,living and working in the USA I have had debate about this subject any many try to shield behind the phrase "law abiding citizen".
With knowing how the American society works some sort of defense might be unfortunately needed,there should be no reason to own legally automatic assault weapons by the general population,other then to betray the need to a violent interaction with others.
The 2nd amendment has become a tired and outlived and should need to be re-written.
I hardly believe that the founding fathers of this country meant for people to ambush each other at any given situation.
Unfortunate what many (pro-gun) Americans refuse to acknowledge is that the world looks over our shoulders and as the international media reports such mass shootings,how this impacts the few of the world and how this might decrease tourism to the USA,taking the safety factor in account.
The reoccurring violence will leave the USA in a isolating predicament as how it is viewed in a rather loosing battle as how the American society can function in a civilized world.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

2:30 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

It is not just the incidents that gets the worlds attention but our response to them. We weep with and support victims, we honor responders and we convict all who contributed to the killings. We are doing pretty good at first two but we are not so precise with conviction. Mentions of eye witnesses of others taking part in both recent mass shootings disappear. I will give investigators the benefit of doubt and assume for the moment they are seeking more information to confirm before giving details. It has taken decades for light to be shed on JFK's shooting for an example and it has come from private sources who just did not let up. Peace be with us as we continue to share.

Comment_arrow

Greg

2:56 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Fred, Statistically the US has less violent crime per capita than the European countries.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
New York's population is about 8 million, London's population is about 7 million, yet London has 7 times as much violent crime as New York.
I know where I would vacation.

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

4:14 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Thanks Fred. I am afraid that the image the US exports of itself IS of EMPIRE.... A globally violent uni-power, bent on extending it's power base at the expense of all who it deals with. This has been characterized as a Corporatocracy... Not even simply the US, but the consortium of vast international corporations who buy leadership positions and or influence, in order to safeguard and facilitate their singular agendas. Who profits from violence? For one...the industrialists who structure war, who make destruction possible and who get the contracts for reconstruction. Secondly and simultaneously huge banks that push loans on needy countries...loans which will become impossible to repay... And then leverage the debt into control of those countries utilities, media, engineering projects, etc.

Our violence is both economic and military on the international level. On the home front...yes we seem to love violence...it fills our dreams (movies, literature). Are we never tired of another cop bursting through yet another door, swinging his gun back and forth as he checks out another room? Or the good guy and bad guy drawing down on one another one more time... as if this is dramatic? It's boring but the incredible appetite we have to vicariously live through show after show suggests something about our collective psyches.

Greg

2:08 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there."

Now the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Reply

Jason J

3:10 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... “Baa.”
Lt. Col. Dave Grosman

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

3:58 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Lt. Groomsman is part of those under the paradigm of militancy... A self avowed warrior... A willing subject to a code he has taken on. What iis the point of this reply? I missed it unless it is to say that many people believe in violence as a means to solving problems.

Avenging Angel

3:31 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

You completely overlook the fact that there are evil people in the world. We can't protect ourselves from evil by "evolving", sending letters, or forming "study circles".

From the movie "Ben Hur": "Baltazar is a good man. Until all men are like him, we must keep our swords bright"

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

3:56 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Avenging angel... By your nickname you suggest a position. Keeping swords bright sounds defensive....not offensive. Is offensive violence justified? What if you just "feel" threatened? Time to go to guns? what if someone looks dangerous? Shoot him? Well... Those are justifications we have used internationally to try to make our pre-emptive attacks appear legal and rational.

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

4:21 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

4:20 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
The problem with evil is we tend to project it...or to see "the specking our brother's eye, while missing the log in our own." Take Sadam Hussein...inarguably a
badbadman. Is he evil? Maybe so...but if so...why was he hired by our CIA to assassinate the prime minister of his country? (failed attempt but close). Why did we send him billions in aid, technology and materials to make weapons of mass destruction... With which he killed Kurds and Iranians? We helped to created Sadam Hussein... So if he is evil...are we not evil as well?

Brian Carlson

3:46 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Hoffa... Peace brings on millions of deaths....? The Burmese, South Vietnamese and Russian Jews???? It was Peace that killed them??? Rather warped logic I think. Peace doesn't kill. Violent humans kill and the underlying prompts of list for power, disregard for human life, hatred...etc.

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

4:36 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Brian -

Hypothetical time -

In the three examples I gave you and you responded to, suppose that those people fought back instead of simply allowing others to slaughter them in cold blood. Now suppose that in those battles, only 1M casualties were recorded in each before a victor emerged or a ceasefire / treaty was entered into. Had those people not fought back, 20M casualties would have been recorded in each situation.

By remaining principled to peace and refusing the fight back, 60M die.
By reacting to forceful violence with forceful violence, only 3M die and 57M lives are spared.

What scenario do you prefer and why?

Brian Carlson

3:51 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Hoffa... The one violent person would be the most powerful person in an otherwise peaceful world? Your idea of power is purely negative. Do you recognize how powerful love is? Do you see any positive power? Helping people is enormously powerful...empowering others to reach their maximum potentials as humans, educating them in compassion, responsibility, in living sustainable lives.... can save millions from the blights of hunger, disease, poverty.... ignorance. Do you see power in this?

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

4:30 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

@Brian -

Please, don't get Hoffa wrong. Hoffa is a very peaceful guy and is dedicated to promoting peace, but Hoffa also realizes that there are certain times and situations when force/violence becomes necessary. If you're up against someone intent on eradicating an entire faction of people, but won't challenge that person because you're dedicated to peace, that faction of people will no longer exist - so what good does peace do them exactly?

Better yet, imagine a hostile alien invasion intent on eradicating us so they can loot the planet for all of its resources, not unlike the premise of the film Independence Day (1996). What if we were all so dedicated to peace that none of us would even try to fight back? The human species is completely eliminated from the universe. What good did peace do us - other than the fact that we could all say, well, at least we died maintaining our principles?

I don't know, that just seems a bit too extreme to me.

Brian Carlson

5:58 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Hoffa... There are many ways to challenge violence without resorting to the same. Violent people are people.... Remember the tank guy in Tienammen Square? The tank commander could have crushed him... But didn't. One man stood off a tank barehanded.... and...with the world's attention...made the army and Chinese authorities look to be what they were in that situation... Over reactors, foolish... Despotic.

Te countless scifi scenarios of hostile aliens perpetuate this sort of paranoia we labor under. Who are the "aliens?" .... Our neighbor might be one... Or the government... Or foreigners...a virus... Etc. always we try to send up our fighters, the military...and they are wasted. Eventually what saves the world is either a lone person, a kid...or something not toxic to us, but fatal to the aliens. nukes in a couple of cases I guess. What do we draw from these tales? Intelligence is our greatest strength. Trying to understand the enemy is vital. or we may be saved by something entirely beyond our control.... But not our violence.

Reply

Brian Carlson

6:09 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Joanna....BRAVO. Action is what is required...not talk alone.mwords that leadnonly to words are worthless.
Try on this link...
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/727/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8892

You can contact your representatives about SOA.... (WHINSEC). As soon as your research affirms what I said! I am proud of you.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

7:11 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

thanks for the link and the bravo. I have signed up for their bulletins and sent Paul an email. I will call on Monday also. I checked earlier and found info almost the same as you linked and shared. One You Tube piece (sorry I do not know how to link) said that Islamic Brotherhood members were being trained also and then blending in with others crossing into US. That piece said that was why it was not closing at this time. I will look for more and also ask in my church as most there are from Latin America and came to escape the violence. At any rate defunding is consistent with budget reduction and so many other principles.

Brian Carlson

6:20 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Hoffa.... During the twentieth century alone over 200 million people died as a result of wars and military conflict. Mental image.... Taking an average height of five feet to compensate for all the children slaughtered, if you laid them head to toe at the equator, you could band the earth over six times. They did not die because of peace...they died due to paradigm I have attempted to describe that holds that might makes right... You assume that fewer would be dead had more shots been fired???? More weapons... Maybe greater weapons???? I think the evolution of killing technology and history suggest that is not true.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

6:22 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Whoever posted on the POpe speaking out against war.... That is incredibly good to know...thanks for the posting. I wonder how the American Christians standonthis....Catholics and otherwise.

Jason J

6:28 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Brian, you missed my point by the quote from Grossman.
The point is you can love and promote peace all you want, Until the rest of the world follows that same Dream there will be violence and violent people. I for one will choose to pray for the best, yet plan for the worst. I will not succumb to violence, nor will I use it unless it comes to protecting myself or others from it. You say you were assaulted 3 times in your life, glad you survived and glad to see that it did not change your mentality. The world needs more victims and people who can justify being victimized, like you, in order for the others to say " I won't let that happen to me."

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

8:42 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Jason J... I think part of this issue is how do you want to spend your life.... Assuming there will not be perfect peace....(and I reiterate...I am not talking about perfect peace I am talking about moving towards real peace....), do I want to spend my time anticipating violence and training in war.... Do I want to support those who promote war... Or do I want to actively pursue peace? Not a black and white question really...I am just using a few words. I can get armed to the teeth, spend my weekends at a shooting range, fortify my home and car... It's an option. On the other hand, using common sense and normal precautions, I can focus on interacting with others in a positive fashion... My guess is that the fear factor in this country is way out of line with the real chances of being attacked...hyped by the gun lobby and inndustry, and it reflects a larger insecurity about personal issues in life.... The feeling that as simple citizens, we are not in control of our lives.

Fred van der Wal

8:07 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Brian and Gregg..the discussion on violence here in the USA remains rather one-sided as long this is held with locals taking part in this discussion.To have a wider understanding how violence is viewed this forum needs a broader (international) contribution.
And as stats goes:according a study of the American Bar Association on gun control between the USA and other nations suggesting different numbers
And as stats goes:according a study of the American Bar Accociation on gun control between the USA and other nations sugesting differnt numbers.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html

Reply

Brian Carlson

8:55 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Thanks Fred.... We are a myopic culture as you may have realized, knowing little about how other countries see us... And, sadly I think, caring way too little about our effect on these countries and the world. We rely too much on our mainstream media for information...information that has been filtered and processed by powerful concerns. There is a general naivete when it comes to historical awareness, particularly when it comes to our history in international relations. We are charmed, apparently, by simple catch phrases without ever unpacking them and testing them for truth, validity in our current world, or content. So... , foor example, we will leap to "serve our country," with the best of intentions.... And come to find out we are fighting unwinable wars that have no set timelines, no clear goals and which require vast funds. Did this serve the country or the corporations that profit...war profiteers? Did we free anyone or make their country safe for democracy or did we ram our brand of government down their throats? What does service mean if not serious evaluation, constructive criticism, open debate and our best effort to improve our countries well being?

Reply

Brian Carlson

8:57 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

 
In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.
CDC/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 1999-2003 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars

The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.
Kellermann AL and Waeckerle JF. Preventing Firearm Injuries. Ann Emerg Med July 1998; 32:77-79.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.

 The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
MMWR. 1997;46:101-105.

Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Powell KE. Childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm deaths: an international comparison. World Health Stat Q. 1996;49:230-235.

Again, thanks Fred.

Reply

Brian Carlson

9:20 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

I think there is some disconnect in the conversation..... Many people are looking at a full blown active "event" or evil... Hitler comes up a a lot, and then say... Well we had to stop Hitler, right? Any violence was justified. This seems rational. My dad was in on it. No matter how many died, here was a clear madman with heinous agendas... the final solution, one of them.

In other words you point to a blazing inferno and say firefighters must respond to that blaze or we will all go up in smoke.

I am talking about largely PREVENTATIVE measures...building worlds in which bigots and rackets can not come to national leadership, where hatred is anathema to any agenda. A world in which Hitlers become impossible. Think about it. He didn't arise in a puff of smoke as the leader of the Third Reich. I am no expert but bigotry had to be rampant and acceptable in prewar Germany, the economy went into a tail spin, the Jews were scapegoated, anger was at a boil over point and people had to be open and sufficiently ignorant to buy into the rousing words of this paperhanger/orator.

Go to a fire department. The firemen probably would prefer that most of use our brains to prevent fires......so they don't have to dash in and pull us out.

Reply

Fred van der Wal

9:20 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Don't take me wrong gentleman.By no means am I trying to degrade this nations .America indeed tries to live with honorable values and showing the world their goodwill towards all in need.Unfortunally I suspect that we also like to look how America once was and unable to move forwards from that period of time.America is only a few hundred years old in comparison of most country's.I for once hope to believe in our genuineness to learn to respect eachothers lifes.

Reply

Brian Carlson

9:21 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Back tothe truly evil guys... Be sure to examine the history of their evolution....The US helped to create both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Noriega was a graduate of our infamous School of the Americas as were many despotic leaders and military figures...people who later were apprehended by international courts and convicted of war crimes. could Pearl Harbor have been anticipated..why tie up eighty percent of your fleet in one harbor?

Reply

Brian Carlson

9:24 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Lyle...."Patriotism absent of peaceful intent is nothing more than extreme nationalism." Good point. Sorry these postings pop up in strange order at times. I appreciate your observations.

Reply

Brian Carlson

9:29 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Fred, no offense taken. I appreciate incite from the international community. It's vital for us all to talk about these issues. I also didn't mean to sound like I was putting words in your mouth.

Reply

Fred van der Wal

9:32 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

"Brian wrote at 9:24 pm could Pearl Harbor have been anticipated..why tie up eighty percent of your fleet in one harbor?"
Historical hindsight,would not most European countries have listened to some "little bird",Hitler might not have been so successful.....It's tough to second guess history.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

10:19 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Yes Fred... my point exactly.... an old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Anti-Alinsky

10:12 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

The “might makes right” axiom was not meant as precept to force a bully’s principles onto others, but as an observation that the victors not only write history, they make it. Knowing this allows us to keep an open perspective as history is being made in front of us.

Guns are indeed the weapon of choice in most violent acts, whether war or individual violence. But that is because it is the most convenient. Prior to the development of the firearm, knives, spears and arrows were the most advanced weaponry around. Prior to those weapons, whatever was handiest worked best. Legend has it that it was a rock that Cain used to kill Abel. The fact is, when someone elects to use violence, they will use the most convenient weapon available, giving credence to the phrase “people kill people”.

Reading Brian’s post, my conclusion is that he feels we can achieve de-facto gun control by educating the populous about the evils of gun use. While society may indeed achieve a measure of success, all it takes is ONE person to destroy the illusion of security that any for of gun control brings. ONE person destroyed those lives and affected the lives of their loved ones.

Reply
Comment_arrow

The Anti-Alinsky

10:12 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

While any rational person wants peace and harmony, it only takes one act of violence to wake people up to the fact that there are way too many irrational people to make that a reality, especially if that act touches their life directly. Once that violence is felt, peace and harmony can only be achieved through security.

The founding father’s knew that our freedoms would be constantly under assault, whether individually or collectively. That’s the reason for the wording
“…being necessary to the security of a free state…”
was chosen for the second amendment. Yes, even our founding father’s would have loved to throw away their rifles and sidearms. But knowing that the world is full of unreasonable people necessitated the need to assure their ability to protect their homes, to protect their family and to protect themselves.

Yes, the Sikh tragedy is horrible, horrible disaster, but it is the gunman that is to blame, not the society that has tried relentlessly to provide him with a secure civilization.

Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

10:23 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Therefore, if one person has a gun, we must all have one. You are into the black and white thinking again. Education about gun use is part of the picture. But I think you are missing the point about the paradigm of violence.... the necessity to teach peace, to practice peace, to think peace....etc. Gun control will occur when people gain more understanding...I think. Just my opinion.

Comment_arrow

The Anti-Alinsky

12:58 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

" No, no, no! Not black and white Ritter, *right* and *wrong*!"
- Harrison Ford in Clear and Present Danger

Brian, I don't know about you but I grew up being taught that peace is a better way. Taught by my parents, taught by my church and taught by my school. Peace is a better way, but all it takes is one person to come along and screw it up.

I think you have taken your thinking to the black and white level. Your writing seems to indicate that by "teaching peace" everyone will give up their guns and live in harmony. Reality is otherwise. One person will commit an act of violence, then will come the retaliation, then the counter retaliation until we are back to square one.

We are complex creatures. For the most part we know and desire peace. But it doesn't take much to get our blood boiling. I can understand someone's frustration and need to take action. I don't necessary agree with it, but I understand it.

Perhaps you should start with baby steps and advocate for being a little more peaceful and working towards that.

Brian Carlson

10:31 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Peace and violence can be achieved only through security..... hmmm. Security recently..meant having a horrendous nuclear arsenal....according to many. Do you agree? Lets get macroscopic for a moment. Since some nuts had nukes (of course we were the only people who actually USED them) we needed more nukes. The nuts...the evil folks...in other words, the people we didnt like...got more nukes and pretty soon we had enough to decimate the planet a ridiculous number of times. Meanwhile.... contrary to the notion that this made us all secure......there were several wars, more genocides.... millions more died.

This Second Ammendment, however good it was...was written by people...not GOD. Maybe it needs revision...clarification? Why is the thought of that tantamount to someone trying to rewrite the Bible for instance.... (actually there are so many translations of the Bible you can take your pick of flavors, slants, interpretations). The Founding Fathers were people not unlike leaders today...a mixed bag of characters, strengths and weaknesses. Many were slave owners for gods sake...so why pretend they walked on water.... or that their ideas are impossible to critique? The Ammendment was an ammendment...... more ammendments followed as seemed vital.

Reply
Comment_arrow

The Anti-Alinsky

1:13 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

Brian, I am assuming this is in reference to my post above. I NEVER said "Peace and violence can be achieved only through security". That indicates a whole different meaning than what I had written: " Once that violence is felt, peace and harmony can only be achieved through security". Perhaps a better explanation is in order.

Once someone experiences an act of violence, it is difficult to regain a sense of peace and harmony. It almost always involves creating a more secure environment to prevent that, or any other act of violence from happening again. It's unfortunate but true. One example is rape. The victim's primary concern is to prevent it from happening again. This means changing behavior that put them in that situation, like walking to their car alone.

I don't think the second amendment needs ANY revision. They stated their reasoning in one simple phrase and the Constitutional right in another. If you don't think that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state, then just say so. I won't agree with you but I can respect you for being honest about it.

Fred van der Wal

10:45 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012

Why idolize the founding fathers;today they would not be voted into office,so why idolize amendments that was based on 300 hundred years thoughts.As long America doesn't want to come out of the stone age,any real discussion is futile.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Brian Carlson

7:46 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

Fred...change is one of the most fearful propositions to human beings....hence the grip on the past, however defective or however I'll suited to the issues facing us today.

Brian Carlson

7:35 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

AA... Reducing what I have written to "by teaching peace, everyone will give up their guns and live in harmony," suggests that my awareness of the complexity of this issue and the challenges it requires are not communicated to you. Education IS critical. Thus far, our education has been to bolster the program we have been on...as it has though out history. Consider your education as a male...I am guessing.. in this western culture. Do you think your beliefs and opinions have been, in any significant way, informed by the pervasive education you have received as to the rightness., if not the righteousness, of the "American way of life"? Do you think that growing up as a male in the largest military power in history... a member of the elite team... The guys that "won" two World Wars .... Had an effect on your world view and on your perpectives regarding the use of violence as a means to various ends?
I know it did effect me. I was spoon fed the glamor and honor of war on countless programs and by countless sources. Fortunately, in my opinion, I was also born at a time where one of these wars was hotly debated...and at a time when I had to make a decision about how my love for my country, my religious faith and my personal sense of right and wrong could mesh to support going to Vietnam to kill farmers or ward off some threat of the spread of Communism (domino theory). We didn't all join the party thoughtlessly and we examined our most deeply held convictions.

Reply

Brian Carlson

7:43 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

Paradigm shifts do not occur quickly but they do occur. We recognize that even huge ideas we took as concrete fact no longer serve, may be modified, or were incorrect all along. The world, as it turned out, was not flat. Men and women weren't controlled by evil demons and drilling holes in their skulls would not free them of madness. Being created equal applied to all humans...even the Indians our forefathers slaughtered and the slaves many of them owned. The paradigms shifted... And the nay sayers were always there suggesting that the way it was was the way it always would be... Even that it was ordained by God. People grow...slowly...but certainly.

Reply

Brian Carlson

10:15 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

Lyle...not sure here why comments that go directly to my gmail...do not show up on Patch for some time and not always sequentially. Anyway... to your post that will appear...I hope... I am not up on Anabaptists...but there are great examples from Rwanda of people taking the offending soldiers back into their communities.... having them stand before the local councils and admit to the atrocities, but then, forgiving them and helping them to live the rest of their lives in peace. Likewise...the Sikhs in this recent massacre... are not harboring vengeance but are speaking peacefully about a situation that would push most of us to our limits if not beyond. I really appreciated your thoughtful comments in this thread.

Also...general note: does everyone notice that no one lowered themselves to name calling here? This is a total anomaly in my experience. We have managed to stay above board...to speak to the issue not attack personalities....and there has been some really constructive interchange. I have learned much about various peoples positions. Thanks to all of you. Very peaceful.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

10:32 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

@Brian Carlson...Anabaptist religious groups include the Amish, Mennonites and Hutterites. They are committed to peace and nonviolence.

Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

12:44 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012

I too noticed the lack of attack and am so appreciative. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Difference of views does not need to cause division in fact is a good reason to come together. Each of us brings our pieces to the puzzle and soon we have a picture of possibility. May God continue bless each and everyone with His peace and understanding.

The Anti-Alinsky

11:01 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012

@Brian -"I was spoon fed the glamor and honor of war on countless programs and by countless sources. "

That points to one of the problems we have as human beings. As far as entertainment goes, war and violence sells. Remember when TV first hit the airwaves? The predominant shows were I Love Lucy, Father Knows Best and Make Room for Daddy. Even the more action oriented shows like The Lone Ranger rarely saw someone being killed. As TV programming evolved, producers and executives realized that sex and violence sells. Why? Because we as humans have that inherent flaw that violence affects us more emotionally than drama.

Brian, I think your desire to create a peaceful planet are admirable. I have no doubt that Christ is looking down applauding you. But remember to keep it realistic. Not everyone is a peace-loving Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Muslim. There are many others that disavow, both within these religions and outside them, that found violence is an easier and more effective path.

Reply

Brian Carlson

4:32 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012

Why does war and violence sell? Look at the characters. Look at the plots and the exciting scenes. We live vicariously through the heroes, even anti heroes, of these dramas. They are not all the same but there are a huge number that have common denominators.... The lone hero...moves outside the impotent police force... (we must see continuously that the normal police/army are going to fall short of being able to deal with the foe....but this one guy, who doesn't play by the rules, who resists orders, will be able to go up against impossible odds and succeed. Sometimes a particular weapon is featured... Dirty Harrys gun, or whatever schwarzenegger is packing... But always, the hero wins through the application of greater violence. It may be cleaner violence... The heroes rarely torture their foes...they are not sadistic... But the game is won by some larger final violent act.

John Q Public would not succeed in the same scenario...those have been ramped way up since the original Lone Ranger days. most of the action adventures would require extreme fighters, NAVY Seals.... Someone skilled in very extraordinary combat and in super physical shape. Not to mention someone who is close to fearless and is seriously agressive.

So this collective dream.. To be THAT GUY....says something about us.... But what does it say?

Reply

Brian Carlson

4:40 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012

I think one thing it says is that we are fearful...
Another point is that we believe the foe is an overwhelming force, a merciless force.
The third point, pretty far out of line I think with reality, is that we will do the when the moment arises.... vanquish this enemy in a blaze of skill, bravado and technology.
Fourth..think a lot of people are angry. They feel disrespected, kicked around, used by "the system." They are angry that they do Not in fact control their destinies... and it would be nice to have someone on which to to vent all that anger...the buildup
resentment.
THese characters often have these things in common as well. they are marginalized, they have been put down by their bosses, their wives have dumped them to go off and get great careers,unwilling to deal with their violent vocations. Help me out here...fill in the blanks from your favorite shows....

Reply

Brian Carlson

4:46 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012

Joanna... I often wonder why more women aren't voicing opinions on these blogs...there are a handful... But not many. My guess is that they are understandably put off by the schoolyard posturing, insult tossing, and adversarial tone many threads take. What is your opinion...or am I off based?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

11:04 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012

You are on target for many of us. When I have had enough I just cut out and go else where to make my points. I usually post what I am hearing and seeing before and wait to see if things shift. At this stage in my life I am not willing to take part in behavior the opposite of what we say we want to achieve. Pray that helps and that other women share their views.

Comment_arrow

Grumpy Old Man

11:50 am on Monday, August 13, 2012

Because women should stick to posts about cooking and cleaning. Leave the heavy lifting to us men.

Brian Carlson

6:55 am on Sunday, August 12, 2012

Well I appreciate your input. This thread has been pretty respectful relative to many and I wonder if it's the topic itself.... Or maybe the Sikh murders....don't know. Peace requires peace...that is for sure.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joana Briggs

11:42 pm on Sunday, August 12, 2012

Just watched "The last Samari" it explores these same challenges. I recommend it. Not a chick flick by the way but a deep exploration.

Brian Carlson

11:05 pm on Sunday, August 12, 2012

$$$ I get the feeling you either don't like me or think I am full of it or both. I would guess if you speak with people about self defense...people who are trained to deal with it, they will tell you there are many scenarios possible short of whipping out your gun and blowing the assailant away. A lot of assailants are basically cowards... Fearful people who want to make others fear them. They are often nervous about what they are doing... They hope it works...and when something heads south on their agenda..it throws them. There is no doubt that I might have been killed or seriously wounded... Different assailants might have acted different ways. However... I wasn't.
All of them gave up as I wasn't caving to the program. I think they wish I would have tried fighting them.... They wish I would have pleaded or whatever.

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

11:45 pm on Sunday, August 12, 2012

@Brian -

Don't take it personally, $$andNonsense tends not to like anyone.

Comment_arrow

$$andSense

11:21 pm on Saturday, August 18, 2012

Quite right Goofy Hoffa. I have no tolerance for: stupidity, arrogance, narrow minds, young and inexperienced know-it-alls, third person make believe commentators, politicians and their whore promoters, etc. etc. Your comment is on mark and I take it as a sign of respect. Thank you.

Comment_arrow

$$andSense

9:45 am on Sunday, August 19, 2012

You know Brian, I do agree with most of what you posted. But I will also say that you were lucky to not get hurt if what you experienced is true. I once took on two "cowards" that could have easily done me in if things went differently. So I got lucky too. Older, wiser and a CC permit does not make me a better man, but all I want is to survive to an old age for my kids in this ever increasing violence that seems to be every where. This life, this country and this world is mine too and I refuse to give in to thugs and terrorists trying to take it away from us. You have issue with that JRH?

Brian Carlson

6:27 am on Monday, August 13, 2012

I did like the part about the Superman Stare. Very funny. As child, I was more envious of his ability to see through walls... Which, come to think of it, anticipated security scanners. All useful.

Reply

Brian Carlson

11:14 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Grump... Think you managed to miss the past fifty years.

Reply

Brian Carlson

12:59 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Dollars... Like all cultures, gun culture, has a broad spectrum of attitudes and proponents. I think that in the long range, fewer guns on the planet will lead to fewer deaths.... The nuclear arms race provided the example of the ridiculous extreme we could go to attempting to secure peace through stockpiling the most sophisticated weapons technology. I have no issue with you at all. If you believe you are safe with your gun(s) that is as it is. If, like several posters, you get off on fantasizing about this bad guy you are going to get to put down.... That strikes me as a sad way to live and a mentality that eventually attracts more violence. It also strikes me as compensatory for some sort of frustration with life. I don't know you at all... You could be anywhere on a spectrum from a purely defense oriented safety position, to a fearful reckless macho type who is likely to create what he secretly fears. I was lucky or fortunate or an angel was with me.... Had I had a gun however, I believe there would have been more violence at each scene.

Reply
Comment_arrow

$$andSense

9:13 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Sorry Brian, I do not fantasize about bad guys, hurting others, guns, or any forms of violence. Does hunting constitute violence to you which I partake in? A few months ago I caught some kid in my driveway trying to get into my vehicle around dusk. I literally kicked him in the behind and told him to get. I had the castle law excuse on my side if I wanted to shoot him but I know the kid lives in some low income housing a few blocks away. If he stays on the same path, someone else will do him in. No cops needed.

I do fear nuclear weapons and politicians willing to disarm the populace under the guise of our “safety”. What more do you ask of people to turn them into complete government dependent sheeple? JRH is correct, I do not like most people because most want gov’t to take care of them and are willing to turn over their constitutional rights to make them feel “safe”. I am not one of them. So, give up your rights and call 911 when the wind rattles your door or windows because you may be threatened . Good luck.

mau

1:33 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Kind of ironic isn't it, that Mrs. Obama is coming to Milwaukee to console the victims families of the shooting in Oak Creek, while her husband continues to order drone attacks against innocent men, women and children. How many deaths of innocent people is our peace president responsible for.

Reply
Comment_arrow

$$andSense

8:13 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

mau

I just got censored on that article for making the same remark. Strange, the truth is hard to take.

Comment_arrow

mau

10:49 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

@$$, I guess the truth hurts :)

mau

1:37 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

The ultimate Paradigm of Violence = Abortion.

Reply

Brian Carlson

1:39 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Mau.... I completely agree. I am sure she is well intended, but the fact is, as you point out: the President has given in to the powers that be who believe that might makes right and that innocent civilians may be sacrificed, at least in other countries, in order to pursue agendas that ARE NOT democratic, ARE NOT humanitarian, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH freedom and ARE MOST LIKELY illegal in international law. There is a phrase that you cannot serve God and money (mammon).. You also can not serve REAL democracy and Empire at the same time.

Reply
Comment_arrow

mau

7:16 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

I am sure this president, as well as all the others, knew full well what their agenda is. Otherwise they would not be in the position they are. The last one to attempt to rock the boat was Reagan and before that Kennedy. All the others march lock step no matter what party they are from.

Imagine what our country could be if we used all those resources for the good of our own people.

Brian Carlson

1:43 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Mau, if those who were adamantly opposed to abortion...the right to lifers... Would also join those opposed to war....on the same principle (right to life) it would give a lot more credibility to their position. Who has a right to life... If the unborn do... Do Iranian civilians, Yemeni children, Pakistani wedding guests? I would love to see the right to lifers stand up against war.

Reply
Comment_arrow

mau

7:12 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

@Brian, couldn't the same be said for those who are anti-war?

I guess I will ask you this. Who are we killing all these people (with war) for? And why haven't all the anti-war people supported Ron Paul? The only candidate who had been vocally opposed to the US being the policemen of the world. I just cringed during the debates when all those candidates turned on him when he did not support the US war machine.

Comment_arrow

Lyle Ruble

8:42 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

@mau....It's called follow the money. The military industrial complex is in support of the American Empire called the Plutocracy. The reason behind all of this is in support of the U.S. interests that is set by the corporatist oligarchy. Look what happens when we start talking about reducing military spending, lobbyists start crawling out of the woodwork to defend the fat DoD gravy train. Ron Paul was right, but it would cost the fat cats too much money. We don't want to move to alternative energy sources because, again they are protecting the gravy train.

Brian Carlson

8:36 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

The presumption is that the people we kill are threats to the US. I will give you one famous example and you can research this easily and see if it's true. Sadam Hussein was one of the most famous of the recent "threats" to the US... Our approach to get rid of him was to launch a war on his country. Fantastic expenses we are still paying, thousands of US soldiers, over a hundred thousand Iraqi killed.... A large percent of them civilians. And Saddam WAS a bad guy...no doubt. But here is something fascinating for you to consider. WE HIRED him to assassinate one of Iraqs earlier leaders. The CIA staged a coup and young Saddam was one of the lead assassins. It failed but definitely helped him rise in power in the Baathist party. Later, once he had become the President and was at war with Iran...we gave him huge amounts of aid in technology and the ingredients for chemical weapons (WMD) which he used against Iranians and his own people!!!! We helped him build and stockpile WMD!!!!! Then we decided that as he wasn't playing by all of our rules he had to go. 911 was a perfect pretext even though he had ZERO to do with it! Who profited by the war? HUGE MULTINATIONAL corporations like Haliburton and other suppliers of arms and construction materials made billions! They make money destroying countries and then make money rebuilding them. This is a short answer.

Reply
Comment_arrow

mau

10:44 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Duvalier, Aristide, Noriega... There is a long list of political "allies" who turned into "enemies". Again crossing both party administrations.

What do you think the IMF does to foreign countries?

Brian Carlson

8:41 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Mau..I agree about using the enormous resources for the good... As for Reagan, google the Iran Contra affair and see some of what he pulled while in office. Kennedy I am not fluent in... But he was in the early days of involvement in the Vietnam debacle.....

Reply

Brian Carlson

8:42 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Here is a link you might be interested in......
http://costofwar.com/

Reply
Comment_arrow

mau

10:46 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

How can the cost of war continue to grow in Iraq. Obama ended that war, didn't he?

Brian Carlson

8:58 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012

Thanks Lyle.... I hope you can weigh in on the blog I submitted today...re:dissent. I think it overlaps with your freedom of speech piece.

Reply

Brian Carlson

6:46 am on Monday, August 20, 2012

Mau, I think the IMF and World Bank often function as the front line in our warfare. They make vast loans to developing countries, promising huge economic growth to the leadership, get them in debt far beyond any ability to repay, then dictate their agendas to them. part of the agendas include using our corporations to build the infrastructure...so the money really doesn't stay in the country, help their workers, etc. Of course, if they dont comply with the demands of the economic "hit men", they can meet our jackals... Literal assassins. Their personal planes can malfunction and crash in the mountains or whatever.

A bit on evil Noriega... He was a graduate of our infamous School of the Americas...we taught him how to be a dictator, murderer, torturers, etc. When he decided not to let us have our will in Panama...we attacked him.

Reply
Comment_arrow

mau

2:21 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012

We agree here completely. In most cases it's a front to controlling the debtor country's natural resources whether it be oil, drugs, gold or shoreline. It's been quite some time since I read about all this and had forgotten about the School of the Americas. Noriega was lucky as he stayed alive in a prison in Florida. I think he was just extradited last year. Can't remember to which country though.

Brian Carlson

2:35 pm on Monday, August 20, 2012

I highly recommend Confessions of an Economic Hit Man...if you havent read it. An insider who worked for the banks, explains it all very precisely and in several countries. John Perkins is the author.

Reply

Brian Carlson

3:46 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012

Jeff, the Suarez article on drone warfare was chilling. Don't know why your comment has not shown up here.

Reply

Jeff

4:00 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012

Brian, chilling indeed. I posted it as a reply to the 'conversation' thread - so it's wayyyy up there and not showing up down here at the bottom. Anyways, here's the link again for anyone interested:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/08/23/isaac-asimov-warned-us-about-combat-drones/

Reply

Leave a comment