Free Republic

i say this as a licensed architect that has studied vernacular architecture of flood-prone and semi-tropical regions . . .

this is actually a great entry. use of recycled materials. overhangs as sunshades. maximize natural ventillation by use of windows on opposing sides of the home. you know it's going to flood, so you build it on stilts.

when the french first started colonizing new orleans, they figured out the important stuff pretty quick - that it WILL flood, so you'd better design your building around that simple fact. note that nearly every plantation house and french creole cottage down there has been flooded at one time or another - often repeatedly. all of the critical living spaces are above the ground floor. when it starts flooding, you move your important stuff upstairs and wait for the waters to recede.

also note that most of the buildings that were undamaged by the flooding were built before the 1920's, with the main floor at least 4 feet off the ground. homebuilders in the area, for some reason, have since forgotten that floods happen when you live below sea level in the semi-tropics.

those that WANT to live in new orleans will figure out a way to make it happen. socialist social engineering won't work. new orleans has a golden opportunity to hoist itself from the swamp (forgive the pun) of dependency.

there are many citiziens who WANT to pitch in and make new orleans great again. they will do it if government will "promote the[ir] general welfare and let them DO IT.

Greetings.

Your implied point of "you fight the same way that you train" is correct and relevant. However, if your methodology of, say, martial arts training includes a large percentage of striking with multiple high side kicks to the head, you may someday find yourself defeated by an opponent that simply blocks your kick and swiftly dislocates the knee of your supporting leg. The fewer number of things you must "think" about to defend yourself, the more effective your defense will be.

In the context specific (barely) to this thread, this means that spending time and/or energy making sure that your weapon is in the correct Condition is unnecessary when you've got a GLOCK with a round in the chamber. Just point and squeeze.

Instinct based upon training *should* take over in the heat of the moment of crisis. But training and methods should also be focused toward effectiveness AND simplicity.

Cheers.

bd

GLOCKs are the simplest guns to operate. Simple is what is required when you're a little stressed out because there's a bad guy coming at you with intent to kill.

To fans of the 1911, keep in mind that GLOCK 21 owners get 14 tries to shoot something without a reload. You get 8. ;-)

I have operated both 9mm and .45 GLOCKs. The difference in recoil between them is very slight, and there ain't much recoil to either of them. To say that a woman can't handle a .45 is just wrong. I read an article somewhere where a female police officer specificially referred to her Glock .45 when filling a bad guy full of lead.

Every gun manual I have ever seen is VERY clear about the types of ammo that are appropriate to use in the weapon, and to use an unapproved cartridge type is asking for trouble.

The item about the ported barrel with non-ported slide is VERY interesting to me. I had not heard about that before. I'll be curious to see how it all works out.

What hasn't been brought up so far is the whole lethality controversy. I don't know exactly where I heard about it, but it's important to view the issue within this context:

Portland is anti-gun Moscow on the Willamette. The Portland Police have been under close scrutiny over the past sevearal years for some questionable (i.e. lethal) shootings of suspects. [WARNING - SPECULATION ALERT] I think I remember reading some local commentary about how the Department was essentially just looking for an excuse to get rid of their .45s because the round was TOO LETHAL. While there is some debate about the lethality of the .45 relative to the 9mm, I certainly wouldn't be too happy if I was a police officer and my department wanted to make me less lethal.

When you - police, military or civilian - point a gun at somebody, it should be with the understanding that you are prepared to kill that person, not simply wound them. And with all of the meth problems in Portland, I would want all the lethality I can get, right when I need it.

Being a parent, I know how hard day care providers work. The ones that take care of my child are very good at what they do and work very hard. Their job is further complicated by trying to please everybody, including very protective and nurturing parents, all the time - an impossible task. So in my relationship with them, I give them a great deal of leeway in what they do.

(Side note - I want to clarify is that my wife and I put our little girl in day care for matters that are deeper than simply Luxury and Convenience. Where we could afford to live on only one of our incomes would threaten the short- and long-term Health, Safety, and Welfare of my daughter. On THAT we will not compromise. We have placed ourselves in such an environment/situation where we COULD live there on only one income, but only for a relatively short period of time.)

What it comes down to is how I feel about unions in general. It goes without saying that employers should manage their employees in an ethical and compassionate manner. Unions are, IMO, a result of misunderstanding between labor and management. Maybe I'm naive, but if each party could clearly understand the other, necessary give-and-take between them would be as a result of mutual respect, not as a result of legal mandate or "us against them." We're all in this capitalist system together, people. Let's compete with each other to be the best we can be, but let's also be team-builders in our daily actions.

Since Atos done gone 'n' drug me in to it . . .

Watch the movie "PCU", starring Jeremy Piven. That's all you need to know about the politics of Ultimate Frisbee. "That weasel snagged the bee!" But I digress - another conservative I sit near in the office is an avid Ultimate fan.

Atos and I talk a lot about what political discussions do to personal relationships, seeing as we are absolutely surrounded by Liberals. I have found that unyielding patience does wonders. Never stoop to the tactics of name calling. Always stick to the issues, calmly and rationally. Whatever salvo's they throw at you, strive to maintain your own reputation as a rational and thoughtful person. They don't have to like you, but hopefully they'll respect you, especially for not backing down in the face of hostility. No matter what is thrown back an forth between the '4-5 true believers' and I, I can still have a beer with each them at the end of the day, even as I am dumbstruck by how they can have such an opinion and also supposedly agree with the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

Both Atos and I are aficionados of Chinese-based martial arts. One of the central tenets of Chinese (and other) arts is to let the opponent's force become their own enemy; let their hostility be the source of them losing their balance and falling on their face. I have yet to master that concept in regards to verbal "combat". It's tough to declare a winner in such situations, because the Lefty "loser" typically doesn't know that they've just fallen on their face. But those scars from hitting the pavement of logic and respect are visible to others.

So what it comes down to, I think, is how the words that you choose influence others. Overwhelming firepower of semantics, regardless of their veracity, seems to be the current way to do (or at least attempt) that. I have a perennial faith that people will do the right thing if given the opportunity for thoughtful consideration. If you remain on the steady, honest, thoughtful and balanced path in your words you will never be taken for a fool. They might not agree with you simply because of what you say, but maybe they will someday agree with you because what you say AND (more importantly) because of who you are.

To call yourself a Republican to a stranger invites prejudice in the Lefties around you. To BE a good person who, by the way, happens to be a Conservative is the only way I know to get a Leftist to actually consider your viewpoint. Which is the first step to persuasion.

here's something that will pull it back on-topic, if in fact it ever WAS off-topic:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64621,00.html

Heck, even the 20th century Soviets worked harder than the 21st Century French. Granted, the Soviets' motivation was to NOT end up dead or in Siberia, but at least they actually worked to support their government. The French apparently have no such desire. I love France, as a life-long student of architecture, art, culture and history, and I have met some wonderful French people. It pains me to see them rotting themselves into oblivion. I wish that they could cut off that cultural gangrene. But lacking that, I wish they would just keep the stench to themselves.

Atos:

Rainbow 6, AND The Teeth of the Tiger, which I hope you have had a chance to read.

And to oceanperch, it was the "Rajneeshies", the red-clad followers of the Bagwan Shree Rajneesh, that set up camp in Antelope, OR when I was a teenager in Portland. The 100+ bulletproof Rolls-Royces owned by the Bagwan is what I remember the most. They put Salmonella bacteria in salad bar items in several restaurants in The Dalles (which is due north of Antelope, on the Columbia River), sickening several hundred people. Their apparent goal was to AFFECT THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION for County Commissioner. Gee, where have I heard THAT before?

As you and I just talked about . . .

THIS is about the moral imperative of righteous self-defense:

-------
DON’T TREAD ON ME
by Metallica

Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail
Once you provoke her, rattling of her tail
Never begins it, never, but once engaged...
Never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage

Don’t tread on me

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you’ll hear evermore...

Don’t tread on me

Love it or live it, she with the deadly bite
Quick is the blue tongue, forked as lighting strike
Shining with brightness, always on surveillance
The eyes, they never close, emblem of vigilance

Don’t tread on me

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you’ll hear evermore...

Don’t tread on me

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is to prepare for war

Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail
Once you provoke her, rattling on her tail

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you’ll hear evermore...

Don’t tread on me

---

It may have been written as social commentary at the time, but I think it works well for motivation in a post 9/11 world.

I ride the Portland Light Rail, MAX, through the long tunnel every day to work. Since it is light rail, it's not as large and heavy as a commuter train that most Americans and Europeans might think of. The train lengths are always shorter than the 200 ft. Portland city block because they run above-ground through the downtown core. I'd say the maximum capacity (standing room only) of a given train is maybe 200 people (just guessing here).
So, to think of possible scary scenarios . . .
Because it runs on the street, it is close to the many people that walk through pedestrian-friendly downtown Portland. Lots of potential casualties there, especially in the more public gathering spaces. The 5:15 trains are always packed.
The tunnel would obviously give maximum constrained effect to any terror attack, but the below-ground stations aren't used very often, so I can't see it being a likely scenario.
While these scenarios do cross my mind on occasion, I don't really feel threatened by that as I ride. But I do try my best to unobtrusively keep my eyes open for suspicious behavior. The only time I ever got the willies is when some kid let of a stink bomb on the train last summer - not the stink itself, but what the stink might be.
I agree, to a certain extent, with Atos, in that Portland is a relative safe haven for terrorists for its over-the-top Liberal sensibilities. So it wouldn't be to a terrorist's advantage to act in a manner that would cause the authorities to crack down on their security. A pessimistic view, perhaps, but probably as realistic as any other.

(Note: This op-ed was sent to me by a Leftist friend under the subject heading "Common Ground". It goes part way to logical discourse, but takes an offramp when it comes to furthering the Liberal agenda at the cost of legitimate governance)

Where I would begin disagreement with the author is in planning and conduct of the Iraq Liberation. He seems to be more in to the political issues surrounding war than the strategic and tactical issues of warfare (maybe simply because he’s focusing on that issue here). Every smart military man knows that no matter how good a battle plan you might have, you have to be flexible in its application, because armed conflict is nothing but chaos. You never know exactly what is going to happen, so you have to be ready for anything. The very nature of tactics is that they have to be fluid.

What’s different about the Iraq Liberation, though, ARE the political and civilian considerations. In our age of extremely precise weapons, we’re used to the idea of “surgical strikes.” In spite of that, there will always be noncom casualties in combat simply because of proximity.

The United States (and probably any other state) has been the most successful in warfare when they can beat the crap out of their enemies with maximum firepower until their enemies can’t fight anymore. That’s how you win. Things get complicated when you factor intra-national division in to the whole equation. WWII was fought as an all-out conflict – what was important was the material, and even more importantly, psychological defeat of the nation-state waging war against us. Korea and Vietnam were conflicts waged against revolutionaries without clear nation-state organization. If nuclear weapons had not existed, I would venture to think that those conflicts would have been waged more like the wars before them – maximum firepower – instead of going half-assed because there’s a huge communist government with nukes backing up your enemy.

So, at this point in history anyway, the United States needs to figure out how to defeat an enemy in war without absolutely beating the crap out of them because of collateral civilian casualties. If the Democrats have a better idea than what we’re doing in Iraq, I’d love to hear about it. That idea needs to be different than the U.N.-administered debacle that was Somalia. Political, strategic and tactical issues become all the more complicated because the enemy really has no such similar qualms about noncom casualties – if you’re an infidel, you’ll burn in hell; if you’re a real Believer, you will be sent to paradise. In other words, “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” That may have been okay as an off-the-cuff concept with limited scale weaponry, but when one can actually put that idea in to real absolute practice with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, our enemies have to be viewed with moral and ideological clarity. In other words, there is such a thing as good and evil.

The author also seems to think that Bush is the best communicator Republican ideals. IMO, that is far from the case. Whether it be by Bush himself or the way the press portrays and reports him, he’s not as effective as he could be at communicating what is an excellent message of freedom, opportunity, optimism and compassion. To say that the Democrats are the only people that can pull our wayward allies (we have a bunch in Iraq, in case you haven’t noticed) back to us is simplistic. Furthermore, establishing a shadow Democratic government to communicate with those wayward allies is bordering on treason. If Republican politicians were jetting around the world attempting to implement their own foreign policy contrary to a Democrat president, the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

I have no problem with the Democrats putting together a team of people that have international reputations and coming up with some good ideas. At the very least, it raises the bar on dialogue and discourse. But their goal should be to consider and establish viable options in foreign policy, not to actively undermine the current foreign policy being implemented by a legitimately-elected President, spout rhetoric that demoralizes our troops and emboldens our enemies. If guys like Ted Kennedy keep that stuff up, they will make Iraq-as-Vietnam a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bill Clinton is a Sociopath. Saddam Hussein is also a Sociopath.

This really gets to a whole separate discussion, but My2Cents, you might find the books by William Strauss & Neil Howe to be interesting. Here's a weblink to their most 'alarming' one: http://www.fourthturning.com/html/history___turnings.html

While nobody is sure exactly what the future holds, the theories they espouse concerning generations and cycles of history confirmed many of the thoughts that I had knocking around in my head as I grew from an adolecent to an adult. if Strauss & Howe are right, you Boomers are gonna need us GenXers to pull y'all back to reality.

Welcome to the Fourth Turning.

Maybe i'm naive, but i just don't think that most of the american populace is in to emotion-based psycho-analytical politics anymore. there are lots of bad people out there that are thinking up ways to kill as many americans as possible, which might include me. wrangling over definitions of "sex" and "is" pale in comparison to the cold hard potential reality of my federal government being decapitated or me being vaporized as i play with my daughter in my backyard.

I don't want to be bribed by politicians (nod to Tocqueville) anymore - I'm pretty darn sure that the baby boomers are going to eat up all of the taxes I pay, especially my social security, and then ask for more and leave nothing for me. i'm getting very very very fed up with "affordable health care", "affordable prescription drugs", "living wages", "tax breaks for the rich" and various other Lefty gems of class warfare. i'm not going to reap the rewards of those bribes anyway. nor should i. or perhaps more importantly, nor should the Left try to bribe me.

oh i could go on and on and on but i don't have enough time - my daughter needs me.

Oh, come now, Mr. Atos. Don't be niggardly with your words. ; )

Random thoughts:

gcruse is no idiot. I can see where he’s (she?) going. What's important to understand, though, is that there is a wing of the Left that is very Nazi-like in its behavior: you must think this way, you must speak this way, you must respect this person whether they deserve it or not, you must WORSHIP diversity for its own sake, you must worship the earth, etc. Hardly notions of democracy. Based upon what he/she said there, I would like to think that gcruse would acknowledge that those “you must” notions exist on the Left. They exist on the right, too, but the right is labeled whacko, while the Left is not. Well, not yet. But the day that Communists are rounded up, imprisoned, and put to death is the day that I renounce my U.S. citizenship, y’knowhamsayin’? As Ted Nugent said so profoundly: "Freedom of speech is ultra important so stupid people will make their stupid statements so we know how stupid they are." (from tednugent.com)

The article smacks of desperation.

I admit there are parallels, but people need to recognize that there IS a threat. Any thinking person should be able to evaluate this, or any article, for what it is without having political preconceptions. I have no problem with somebody saying these things, because freedom of expression is of utmost importance. What's of nearly as much importance is the freedom for us to intelligently evaluate what is communicated.

The threats to Germany were almost entirely imagined, while Islamic Militants are REAL. It's sucks, but it's there. Hitler relied on conspiracy theories to acquire his power. Bush is reacting to a real act of war, and is in fact also having to defend himself against people concocting conspiracy theories.
To think that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand is simply crazy. So many specifics would have to be known in order for any preventative action to take place. Our intelligence and law enforcement systems didn’t allow us to connect the dots, an action that might have prevented 9/11. Hindsight is always 20/20. The Patriot Act simply allows our intelligence and law enforcement systems to begin connecting dots – from what I understand, it does not rob any freedoms.

9/11 / Reichstag and Hindenberg/Patriot are parallels that are a little too convenient to be taken seriously, like the Kennedy and Lincoln assasinations. Interesting in their parallels, but invalid in real meaning.

To think that Bush is leading the government around by the nose is also crazy. Germany did not have the same kind of separation of powers that the U.S. has always had. What also occurs to me is that the U.S. is (as long as we have a strong philosophical connection with our frontier/agrarian past) full of rugged individualists who trust themselves more than anybody else, especially the government.

Communists and socialists have just as much of a voice in the U.S. as any other political party. I don't see any concentration camps, nor any on the horizon. Gitmo is TOTALLY different - it holds enemy combatants that were SHOOTING at American soldiers, and the prisoners are living more comfortably than they every did with the Taliban.

The Super Bowl comment is interesting, in that it reveals much about how the author feels about American culture, but it only appears to mean something because it’s very timely. The Olympics are bathed in international relations and national pride (aka propeganda). The Super Bowl is bathed in pure American capitalism. Big difference.

Germany invaded the Sudetenland, Austria, Poland, etc. They were peace-loving and by-and-large democratic states, if I recall. Iraq was a dictatorship. Philosophically, can individual freedom be a concept forced upon a population?

The author's point about the power of the presidency is very interesting, and i find myself agreeing somewhat. From what i can remember about constitutional deliberations, wary of their experience with monarchy and knowledge of imperial Rome, the founding fathers were very concerned about the power of the presidency. the american presidency has become a sort of cult of personality. I defend Bush not because I love him and will do whatever he asks of me, but because I agree with most of his policies and I think he is unfairly maligned. What's important to examine are the actions of the man, and not the personality (percieved or otherwise) of the man. I don't agree with everything he does, but the criticism is starting to get psychotic. People need to remember that the real power of the U.S., i.e. what makes this country great, is the individual citizen. This is because we have the freedom to believe and act in whatever manner we see fit, respecting that same right in others. We stand on the soil of the actions of our past, whether it's digging a hole of regression or standing on a mountain of progress. We shouldn't be lax in examining the behavior of our elected officials, but we should also not neglect to do what's right on a daily basis for ourselves, our children, our families, our communities, and our nation.

The biggest difference with Nazi Germany is that American political parties don't have a habit of intimidating their adversaries with death threats. We rationally discuss the problems, listen to all viewpoints, and make up our own minds. I don't see the National Socialist German Workers Party as being similarly thoughtful in regards to the course of their nation.

I recently saw these words scrawled in to a bench at a bus stop: "KILL REPUBLICANS". Although I know it was put there by some punk kid, is that the voice of a rational thinker? Or the voice of a Leftist "Nazi"?

The simple quote "Never Again" rings loudly in my mind, but we should be aware that tyrrany can be hatched from both the Right AND the Left.

my first post, inspired by my colleague mr. atos . . .

What struck me about the girl’s article is that it wasn’t about principles; it was about BELONGING to something. She’s fallen for the socialist propaganda, but that’s what young Americans often do because they don’t have to worry about their freedom, their safety, or that of their friends and family. To young adults, everything works in socialism because nobody has to take real responsibility for themselves. The State is your parents, supporting your tuition, room, board, etc.

I don’t know exactly when the leap takes place - when a young person realizes that with freedom comes responsibility. Perhaps more importantly, the realization that freedom can not be mandated or enforced; it comes from an individual concept of yourself that, through a little philosophizing, also becomes applicable to those around you. The step has to be made from “everybody should be like me because I’m free and smart and young and idealistic” to “everybody should have the freedom to have their own opinions, determine their own course and respect the courses of others.” It takes an understanding of what oppression is and how to overcome it.

Sadly, I fear that it is going to take an even greater catastrophe than 9/11 for the Left to wake up and understand that there are people that want us dead simply because of our belief in freedom.