The Political Discussion Thread

[lordofseas]

I think this is more of a problem in the media than in people.

[mad_gater]

So in that case, shall we stop referring to radical Muslims who commit horrendous crimes against humanity as terrorists as well? Because, lets face it, it's pretty self-explanatory.

so you need people like me to point out with explicit labeling the obvious fact that actions such as what took place in Aurora and what radical Muslims do are terrorist actions? if you need the obvious pointed out to you then perhaps there is no hope left for the human race

[Goose]

so you need people like me to point out with explicit labeling the obvious fact that actions such as what took place in Aurora and what radical Muslims do are terrorist actions? if you need the obvious pointed out to you then perhaps there is no hope left for the human race

Yeah, you're sorta missing the point, dude...

[KEK]

I didn't detect any sound reasoning in comparing a deranged cinema shooter with organized terrorism of groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar e-Toibah or Jemaah Islamiyah. But it's ok. I'll gladly fisk Cole for you. Easiest job ever.

Unless I'm missing something, he made no reference to the cinema shooting. You do realise a white supremacist also shot up a Sikh temple, right?

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit. Islamic terrorists are consistently referred to by the mainstream media precisely as "gunmen". Or "militants". Sometimes even "activists". Style guides of most large media outlets have just about banned the use of the word "terrorist" except in scare quotes. Just a few days ago a platoon's worth of Islamic terrorists invaded an Egyptian border guard base, murdered 15 Egyptian policemen, stole a truck and an APC and drove into Israel to attack civilians. Lucikly, they quickly met the business end of an IAF missile, but how did the BBC describe them in their report? "Unidentified gunmen". Must've been white Westerners or something.

Or because the culprits had not been identified at the time. Regardless, generally speaking the Western media is far more inclined to call a Muslim gunman a terrorist than it is a random white Westerner, the odd example to the contrary on the subject doesn't refute the overall trend.

Which "other terrorists" precisely is Cole talking about here? Is he saying that the Aurora shooter was part of a global plot, or is he saying that the perpetrators of 9/11 were merely "troubled loners" with no organization behind them? I'm not even sure which of the two makes him more of a despicable demagogue.

False dichotomy. There are plenty of white terrorists that are motivated by political ideologies to point to, and also a slew of lone-wolf Muslim ones.

Factual support for both statements is curiously absent.

Apart from the link he provided of course.

You have got to be effin kidding me. Remember Mohammed Merah, the non-white guy who shot up Jewish children in Toulouse? Chances are you do. Remember the names of any of his victims? I bet you don't, not until you Google. His family was interviewed extensively, and major media outlets published pages upon pages of his family background, community etc. His father will yet earn more coverage as he sues the French police for the "murder" of his bloodthirsty son. Merah's victimes only got some coverage in Israeli newspapers, not even in French ones. And the same pattern holds true for any other terror attack with multiple fatalities: pages upon pages about the perpetrator, barely anything about his victims.

Were these interviews in the French media, or American ones? I used the phrase "white Westerner", not him. In hindsight I probably should have said the Anglosphere. I've no idea what the coverage in France has been like.

Hmm, that's a tough one. Taps into the Western World's first commandment: you shall not generalize. Except... Support for Islamic terrorism consistently polls in double digits in most Muslim societies (positive opinions on Osama Bin Laden ranged from 15% to 60% over the last decade according to Pew polls). How high would Breivik poll in the Western world?

Breivik killed a load of white schoolkids. If he'd blown up a Mosque in the name of "the war against the Islamification of Europe", then I would not be surprised to see a worrying level of support. It's all speculation either way, and even if it's wide of the mark, to suggest that suicide bombers are representative of any Islamic community is ludicrous. It would be like

Hmm. So, if these "other terrorists" openly claim to be members of long-running conspiracies, and organizations in which they claim membership proudly recognize them as their own and praise their deeds, should we call them liars and pretend that they're just random events? Mr. Cole apparently thinks so, but who else?

That's not the implication of what he said at all. He's pointing out the hypocrisy in jumping to one conclusion rather than another based on ethnic or religious background.

That's a tough one again. When a terrorist with a French citizenship claims that he is Muslim and that he committed his murders for the sake of Islam, should one refer to him as being a Muslim terrorist or a French one? Which description reflects more truth and which one obscurs it?

A Muslim-extremist one. His nationality has nothing to do with what he did, his religion, one some level, did. Similarly, a white supremacist terrorist should be called as such, because it's relevant.

Note the ever-so-unsubtle sleight of hand- white terrorists are not typical for white race, so other terrorists should not be seen as typical for their societies. Find the differences.

Because the media prejudice against Muslims is an ethno-religious one, but the prejudice in favour of whites is a racial one.

Suppose a society names schools, soccer teams and summer camps after people whose sole claim to fame is having murdered some civilians. Suppose the leaders of this society routinely lionize terrorists whose glory comes from having committed one of the most famous hostage slaughters in modern history. Suppose that society's most popular TV channel throws a nationwide-televised birthday bash for a man made famous after he murdered a little girl's father in front of her, then smashed her skull with the butt of his rifle. Would it be entirely unfair to describe terrorists of being paragons of this society?

Sounds a lot like the way the US and elsewhere treats their returning soldiers. Even if they have slaughtered thousands (millions?) of civilians in the Middle-East. Wasn't Osama murdered in front if his wife and kids too?

That one is so self-refuting it barely need commenting upon.

Uh... what? All sorts of civil liberties are being eroded in the US in the name of counter-terrorism, yet when it comes to gun laws, there's apparently nothing that can be done. While true though, it has more do to with American politicians being in the pockets of the NRA than anything else.

[KEK]

so you need people like me to point out with explicit labeling the obvious fact that actions such as what took place in Aurora and what radical Muslims do are terrorist actions? if you need the obvious pointed out to you then perhaps there is no hope left for the human race

What were the political motives behind what the Aurora shooter did? I didn't realise any had been uncovered.

[LtColCarter]

What were the political motives behind what the Aurora shooter did? I didn't realise any had been uncovered.

To my knowledge...his only motive was that he said he was gonna be the next Joker.

[Womble]

Unless I'm missing something, he made no reference to the cinema shooting. You do realise a white supremacist also shot up a Sikh temple, right?

I do, yes. Doesn't detract from my point. Neo-Nazi gangs vs. Islamist terror groups is a ridiculously lopsided and skewed comparison.

Or because the culprits had not been identified at the time.

And could with high probability have been white Westerners?

Regardless, generally speaking the Western media is far more inclined to call a Muslim gunman a terrorist than it is a random white Westerner, the odd example to the contrary on the subject doesn't refute the overall trend.

On the contrary. Like I said, style guides of major Western media outlets specifically instruct journalists to shun the T-word altogether. Example: the BBC style guide:

The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent", and "militant".

They're pretty damn consistent about it, too. Here is Reuters' treatment of the T-word when commenting on a Palestinian attempt to blow up a busload of civilians in Jerusalem:

Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike.

Apparently it isn't the Reuters way to call a mass murder of civilians a terrorist attack.

False dichotomy. There are plenty of white terrorists that are motivated by political ideologies to point to, and also a slew of lone-wolf Muslim ones.

Trouble is, there aren't actually plenty of white terrorists motivated by political ideology. Once you start comparing the actual numbers, the difference will be one of orders of magnitude and everyone knows it. There is no white Hamas out there, no white LeT and no white Al-Qaeda. There are pathetic small gangs producing surprisingly little damage.

Another problem is that the "lone-wolf" Muslim terrorists are oftentimes the outgrowth of organized Islamist terrorism. Mohammed Merah did not have an organization behind him, but he did spend time in the Afghan terrorist training camps.

Apart from the link he provided of course.

That link did little to prove his assertion as it doesn't show some kind of systematic suppression of investigations into white supremacists, and certainly doesn't show how investigations into Muslims are a boon for one's career.

Were these interviews in the French media, or American ones? I used the phrase "white Westerner", not him. In hindsight I probably should have said the Anglosphere. I've no idea what the coverage in France has been like.

I'm talking about the Anglosphere al the way, including France-based English media. A simple Google search shows that Mohammed Merah's family has been interviewed by English language media far more extensively than Anders Breivik's, despite both attacks taking place in foreign countries and Breivik's attack being a much higher profile event.

Breivik killed a load of white schoolkids. If he'd blown up a Mosque in the name of "the war against the Islamification of Europe", then I would not be surprised to see a worrying level of support.

I would. It would not be consistent with the public's reaction to similar attacks in the past. How much support is there for the Sikh temple shooter, you reckon?

It's all speculation either way, and even if it's wide of the mark, to suggest that suicide bombers are representative of any Islamic community is ludicrous.

Including an Islamic community which names streets and schools after suicide bombers?

That's not the implication of what he said at all. He's pointing out the hypocrisy in jumping to one conclusion rather than another based on ethnic or religious background.

But it's not hypocricy at all. It's an educated guess. Muslim gunmen are statistically much more likely to belong to organized terror groups, and the groups rarely deny their member status. Should we ignore it?

A Muslim-extremist one. His nationality has nothing to do with what he did, his religion, one some level, did. Similarly, a white supremacist terrorist should be called as such, because it's relevant.

True. And from what I've seen in the media, they're not shy of using the term (which isn't banned by any media style guide). But white supremacist doesn't equal white, so Cole's still a despicable demagogue for conflating the two.

Because the media prejudice against Muslims is an ethno-religious one, but the prejudice in favour of whites is a racial one.

That's a silly attempt at cop-out. Terrorism and approval thereof cannot by definition be a biological characteristic of a race, but it can well be a trait of a society. Therefore Cole's sleught of hand is dishonest. Who the media is or isn't prejudiced against is completely and utterly irrelevant (not that you've made a convincing case for media prejudice so far, of course).

Sounds a lot like the way the US and elsewhere treats their returning soldiers. Even if they have slaughtered thousands (millions?) of civilians in the Middle-East. Wasn't Osama murdered in front if his wife and kids too?

You're filing Osama bin Laden under "civilian"? Noted for future reference.

And do tell me how many schools in the US have been named after a war vet whose sole claim to fame is having massacred civilian hostages in a hijacked bus.

Uh... what? All sorts of civil liberties are being eroded in the US in the name of counter-terrorism, yet when it comes to gun laws, there's apparently nothing that can be done. While true though, it has more do to with American politicians being in the pockets of the NRA than anything else.

So it does need explanation after all. Okay.

Islamic terrorism is a security threat. It's an assault on American society by an outside force seeking to weaken and destroy it. It merits large expenses and efforts because the threat is real and its magnitude is serious, as was shown on 9/11. US gun laws are not a threat to the society's existence or stability; they are, at best, a safety concern. Events like the Aurora shooting and the Sikh temple attack are not comparable to Islamic terrorism in scale, intent or nature, and the methods that work against Islamic terrorism would not be effective against what is basically random domestic shooting attacks.

[Seastallion]

I wouldn't count Romney out yet. Ryan brings the Tea Party, a group that is extremely reticent to support Romney. Romney himself has more moderate Republican policies. Obama and Romney are constantly in flux with each other. Obama can lose this election very very easily.

I wouldn't count Romney out yet either. In fact, he's very likely doing a lot better than people think. As someone who identifies with the Tea Party (not necessarily a member, although my dad is...), I feel like it is more important to get Obama out of office, and then the other issues where we disagree with Romney can be addressed. It is true that there are some Tea Party members who won't support Romney for good reasons, but sometimes the only way you can get things done in politics is to compromise, at least on some things. There are certain principles that can NOT be compromised.

- Energy Independence... This is a big one. Utilizing the energy resources we have (and we have a lot) is very important. We should be smart enough to protect the environment and use our resources at the same time. Our country being dependent on foreign oil is a recipe for disaster.

- Government spending within its means... We should take care of our truly poor, sick, and elderly. However, all the rest of the wasteful government spending is beyond ridiculous. The U.S. has given literally billions and billions of dollars to other countries, including those countries that are buying our debt, such as China and Columbia. I'm not saying that some foreign aid isn't okay, but certainly not to the amount that has been done. The domestic programs are also ridiculous, as well as several of the government agencies, such as the FDA. The FDA is getting most of its budget from the very pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to be monitoring. Talk about a huge conflict of interests; how can we trust them? Then there are the exemption rules that members of congress make for themselves concerning various laws and programs. Such as family members of congress not having to pay back education loans from the government. There are plenty of Federal agencies and policies that shouldn't even exist. Give the powers back to the States to make and enforce their own regulations. The Federal government needs to be as much in the background as possible. This topic is just too big to go completely over. Stop the over spending..! Just to give you an idea of where we're at, check out www.usdebtclock.org We're nearly at 16 Trillion dollars debt...

- Less Federal Government Interference... The over-regulations that government puts on things strangles businesses to the point of absurdity. Gov't Inspectors actually come up with new regulations just so they can have a reason to keep their jobs, many of which are absolutely ridiculous, but also costly. The government had actually suggested to Ranchers that have been having trouble with coyotes eating their sheep, that instead of shooting and killing the coyotes, they should instead capture them, and 'fix' them. To which an elderly Rancher responded, "I don't think you understand our problem. They're not mating (nice word replacement) our sheep, they're EATING them..!" That is just one example, but there are again, far too many examples to possibly site here.

- Simplified Tax System... Personally, I prefer a flat tax. For example, if you use a tax of 10% of whatever you earn. You earn $100, then maybe you pay $10 in taxes. You $10 Million, then you pay $1 Million in taxes. It could be just 5%, or whatever it is ultimately decided is needed. Or better yet, get rid of personal income tax all together. Federal income taxes weren't even collected in the U.S. until 1913, under Woodrow Wilson with the 16th Amendment. This is also the same year that the 17th Amendment was passed, which changed Senators from being appointed by the State legislatures, to being voted on by the public. (I think this should also be repealed, as I strongly believe it has only served to further corrupt the government system.) I think it should also be noted that the 18th Amendment was also made under Woodrow Wilson, and was repealed in 1933 because of the problems it caused. It was also called 'Prohibition'. A simplified tax system would make it a LOT harder to cheat on your taxes, without all the stupid loop holes.

There are plenty of other topics, but these are big ones... Anyway, that is about where I stand.

[Goose]

This is also the same year that the 17th Amendment was passed, which changed Senators from being appointed by the State legislatures, to being voted on by the public. (I think this should also be repealed, as I strongly believe it has only served to further corrupt the government system.)

Why are directly elected Senators a bad idea?

[mad_gater]

spoilered for length:

Spoiler:

I wouldn't count Romney out yet either. In fact, he's very likely doing a lot better than people think. As someone who identifies with the Tea Party (not necessarily a member, although my dad is...), I feel like it is more important to get Obama out of office, and then the other issues where we disagree with Romney can be addressed. It is true that there are some Tea Party members who won't support Romney for good reasons, but sometimes the only way you can get things done in politics is to compromise, at least on some things. There are certain principles that can NOT be compromised.

- Energy Independence... This is a big one. Utilizing the energy resources we have (and we have a lot) is very important. We should be smart enough to protect the environment and use our resources at the same time. Our country being dependent on foreign oil is a recipe for disaster.

- Government spending within its means... We should take care of our truly poor, sick, and elderly. However, all the rest of the wasteful government spending is beyond ridiculous. The U.S. has given literally billions and billions of dollars to other countries, including those countries that are buying our debt, such as China and Columbia. I'm not saying that some foreign aid isn't okay, but certainly not to the amount that has been done. The domestic programs are also ridiculous, as well as several of the government agencies, such as the FDA. The FDA is getting most of its budget from the very pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to be monitoring. Talk about a huge conflict of interests; how can we trust them? Then there are the exemption rules that members of congress make for themselves concerning various laws and programs. Such as family members of congress not having to pay back education loans from the government. There are plenty of Federal agencies and policies that shouldn't even exist. Give the powers back to the States to make and enforce their own regulations. The Federal government needs to be as much in the background as possible. This topic is just too big to go completely over. Stop the over spending..! Just to give you an idea of where we're at, check out www.usdebtclock.org We're nearly at 16 Trillion dollars debt...

- Less Federal Government Interference... The over-regulations that government puts on things strangles businesses to the point of absurdity. Gov't Inspectors actually come up with new regulations just so they can have a reason to keep their jobs, many of which are absolutely ridiculous, but also costly. The government had actually suggested to Ranchers that have been having trouble with coyotes eating their sheep, that instead of shooting and killing the coyotes, they should instead capture them, and 'fix' them. To which an elderly Rancher responded, "I don't think you understand our problem. They're not mating (nice word replacement) our sheep, they're EATING them..!" That is just one example, but there are again, far too many examples to possibly site here.

- Simplified Tax System... Personally, I prefer a flat tax. For example, if you use a tax of 10% of whatever you earn. You earn $100, then maybe you pay $10 in taxes. You $10 Million, then you pay $1 Million in taxes. It could be just 5%, or whatever it is ultimately decided is needed. Or better yet, get rid of personal income tax all together. Federal income taxes weren't even collected in the U.S. until 1913, under Woodrow Wilson with the 16th Amendment. This is also the same year that the 17th Amendment was passed, which changed Senators from being appointed by the State legislatures, to being voted on by the public. (I think this should also be repealed, as I strongly believe it has only served to further corrupt the government system.) I think it should also be noted that the 18th Amendment was also made under Woodrow Wilson, and was repealed in 1933 because of the problems it caused. It was also called 'Prohibition'. A simplified tax system would make it a LOT harder to cheat on your taxes, without all the stupid loop holes.

There are plenty of other topics, but these are big ones... Anyway, that is about where I stand.

sort of where I stand too though I would respectfully disagree about publicly elected Senators...I think it's best to have as many of our public officials as possible elected by we the people instead of appointed by some faceless bureaucrats

heck sometimes I wish our supreme court judges could be elected by the public as Presidents are notorious for appointing justices that go along with them instead of enforce the constitution

[KEK]

I do, yes. Doesn't detract from my point. Neo-Nazi gangs vs. Islamist terror groups is a ridiculously lopsided and skewed comparison.

They're both groups with a political ideology that use terror to try and forward said ideology. That is the definition of a terrorist group. Whether white supremacists are as numerous or as successful as Islamist groups is completely irrelevant.

On the contrary. Like I said, style guides of major Western media outlets specifically instruct journalists to shun the T-word altogether. Example: the BBC style guide:

The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent", and "militant".

They're pretty damn consistent about it, too. Here is Reuters' treatment of the T-word when commenting on a Palestinian attempt to blow up a busload of civilians in Jerusalem:

Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike.

Apparently it isn't the Reuters way to call a mass murder of civilians a terrorist attack.

A point worth making, but I'm not sure it refutes the original article. If anything, it probably highlight the different take the media has on terrorist and militant action in the Middle-East as opposed to the West. Do you really think similar attacks wouldn't have been called acts of terror had they been in London or New York?

Trouble is, there aren't actually plenty of white terrorists motivated by political ideology. Once you start comparing the actual numbers, the difference will be one of orders of magnitude and everyone knows it. There is no white Hamas out there, no white LeT and no white Al-Qaeda. There are pathetic small gangs producing surprisingly little damage.

Well first of all I'm not sure why you think the numbers are relevant to begin with, if they're terrorists, they're terrorists. Being slightly rarer doesn't detract from the hypocrisy of treating someone differently because of their ethnicity or religion, in fact it's generally how racism works. Secondly, have you not heard of the Real IRA? In the UK at least, they've done far more damage over the years than any Islamist group has.
Another problem is that the "lone-wolf" Muslim terrorists are oftentimes the outgrowth of organized Islamist terrorism. Mohammed Merah did not have an organization behind him, but he did spend time in the Afghan terrorist training camps.

That link did little to prove his assertion as it doesn't show some kind of systematic suppression of investigations into white supremacists, and certainly doesn't show how investigations into Muslims are a boon for one's career.

Well yes, obvious it was hyperbole. Do you not think you're taking this just a little bit too seriously? This is a glorified internet blog we're talking about, not the opening statements of a public inquiry.

I'm talking about the Anglosphere al the way, including France-based English media. A simple Google search shows that Mohammed Merah's family has been interviewed by English language media far more extensively than Anders Breivik's, despite both attacks taking place in foreign countries and Breivik's attack being a much higher profile event.

And you would say that conforms to the general trend?

I would. It would not be consistent with the public's reaction to similar attacks in the past. How much support is there for the Sikh temple shooter, you reckon?

The public attitude toward Sikh's and Muslims is hardly comparable.

Including an Islamic community which names streets and schools after suicide bombers?

Which has everything to do with the oppression they feel, and nothing to do with them being Muslims.

But it's not hypocricy at all. It's an educated guess. Muslim gunmen are statistically much more likely to belong to organized terror groups, and the groups rarely deny their member status. Should we ignore it?

So you're in favour of racial profiling then I take it? There's a lot of things that are statistically much more likely when comparing ethnic groups, that doesn't mean institutionalized racism is a good idea just because it's backed up by stats.

True. And from what I've seen in the media, they're not shy of using the term (which isn't banned by any media style guide). But white supremacist doesn't equal white, so Cole's still a despicable demagogue for conflating the two.

I'm not sure what you mean. He never mentioned white supremacists once.

That's a silly attempt at cop-out. Terrorism and approval thereof cannot by definition be a biological characteristic of a race, but it can well be a trait of a society. Therefore Cole's sleught of hand is dishonest. Who the media is or isn't prejudiced against is completely and utterly irrelevant .

"Islam" is not a homogeneous society that you can draw conclusions about. That would be an insane generalization, and the very definition of racism. Which is what the article is about...

You're filing Osama bin Laden under "civilian"? Noted for future reference.

Of course he's a civilian. A criminal, but still a civilian. Although, I do realise the US wants to create a third class of target however, a none-civilian, non-military type target that isn't entitled to the rights of either.

And do tell me how many schools in the US have been named after a war vet whose sole claim to fame is having massacred civilian hostages in a hijacked bus.

What for? To prove that there are Muslim communities out there that are more accepting of terrorism than any in the US? It's not in dispute. The point is it's not applicable to all Muslims, therefore to change your behaviour toward a Muslim based on that non-fact is racist. Simple as.

So it does need explanation after all. Okay.

Islamic terrorism is a security threat. It's an assault on American society by an outside force seeking to weaken and destroy it. It merits large expenses and efforts because the threat is real and its magnitude is serious, as was shown on 9/11. US gun laws are not a threat to the society's existence or stability; they are, at best, a safety concern. Events like the Aurora shooting and the Sikh temple attack are not comparable to Islamic terrorism in scale, intent or nature, and the methods that work against Islamic terrorism would not be effective against what is basically random domestic shooting attacks.

Now this is a cop-out. Scale is irrelevant, intention is irrelevant, the effect is all that matters. The idea that Islamic terrorism could destroy the US with violence, or even weaken it, is ludicrous, frankly. In fact, the only way in which American society has been weakened by Islamic terrorism, is by Americans willingly abandoning a degree of freedom in the name of 'security'. Prevention of murder is what matters, any genuine ideological battle is practically non-existent.

One of the major methods in hampering terrorist activity is the restriction of access to the materials they need. This is very much applicable to the seemingly constant stream of shootings in the US.

[Womble]

I wish I had as much time for this stuff as I used to. But I'll tell you something about the weakening of the American society by means of Islamist violence. I'll tell you that as someone who works in the travel industry.

9/11 devastated America's aviation industry by a single blow, costing it the equivalent of three years of economic growth. The effects have never worn off. Three major airlines- American Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways- went into bankruptsy soon after the attack despite getting tens of billions in aid from the Congress. They never really recovered. 50% of air tickets currently sold on the US market are on airlines in various stages of bankruptsy. If another plane hijacking happens on US soil right now and the demand drops by a quarter of how it dropped after 9/11, your entire airline industry will crumble like a house of cards.

If you really think that terrorism cannot weaken a country, even as mighty as the US, you don't know the world you're living in.

[Seastallion]

Why are directly elected Senators a bad idea?

The Senators were selected by the State legislatures in order to keep the power as much with the states as possible. Special interests groups can't pay a Senator off in the name of election donations, if he isn't going to be elected. Also a Senator doesn't have to worry about anything other than doing his job, no elections worries. The Senator would answer to the state legislature, and could be recalled at any time it was felt he wasn't doing his job. No six year terms between pulling someone from office if they are doing badly. The Senators were selected by the states as a means of keeping power with the states, and not the Federal government. It was supposed to be the responsibility of the Senators to look out for the interests of the States they served, by acting as a check to the Executive government's power.

In addition, I don't think the Senators wouldn't get away with half as much crap as they do now, if they were still appointed. If a Senator tried to pass laws or rules where they were exempt to bills passed, as well as giving themselves ridiculous salaries, I think the state legislatures would reign them in. Why? Because they wouldn't let the Senator get ahead of themselves, by making more money than the members of the state legislature. Or getting away with exemptions that only members of the U.S. Congress were going to get away with. The House of Representatives is the other half of Congress, and people DO (and always did) elect them. It was a fallacy (a lie) that the people weren't being represented by Congress, so they needed to elect Senators too. I believe that the state legislature would be more proactive and immediate with their controls on the Senator. They actually pay attention to daily politics whereas the public does not. Senators dupe the public all the time with lies to cover up their insider trading to enrich themselves. I think the state legislators would not allow that to happen, if for no other reason than that if they wouldn't be allowed to get in on it, they wouldn't let the Senator get away with it. Also, the people elect the state legislators too, so if they were acting outside of the public interests, they can be voted out of office too. Even prosecuted for criminal activity if they did.

This is why the Judicial system is supposed to be outside of the political process to some degree. They were designed originally to be checks and balances, but that system is currently broken, mainly because of greed and corruption within the system. The Executive branch is supposed to be the one that figures out plans to fix problems that need to be solved, and then it is supposed to be the Congress that makes sure that the plan is affordable. The Judicial system is supposed to make sure that the proposed bills won't trample on the rights of the people. Right now though, all the politicians are getting paid off by big business and special interests groups, to gain favoritism for either their business plans, or the proposed programs of the interest groups.

If a Senator being appointed by the states were to give in to such greed practices, trying to enrich himself, he could immediately be called to account for him/herself. The state politicians aren't going to allow someone who is supposed to be under their thumbs to suddenly get more wealthy than them, by means of bought services that are supposed to belong exclusively to the state, and not the private interests groups.

[Seastallion]

I wish I had as much time for this stuff as I used to. But I'll tell you something about the weakening of the American society by means of Islamist violence. I'll tell you that as someone who works in the travel industry.

9/11 devastated America's aviation industry by a single blow, costing it the equivalent of three years of economic growth. The effects have never worn off. Three major airlines- American Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways- went into bankruptsy soon after the attack despite getting tens of billions in aid from the Congress. They never really recovered. 50% of air tickets currently sold on the US market are on airlines in various stages of bankruptsy. If another plane hijacking happens on US soil right now and the demand drops by a quarter of how it dropped after 9/11, your entire airline industry will crumble like a house of cards.

If you really think that terrorism cannot weaken a country, even as mighty as the US, you don't know the world you're living in.

Honestly, I think making sure the cockpit is seriously secured ought to be the biggest security issue. If someone makes it on board with a weapon, so long as they can't reach the cockpit, they can't take control of the plane. Make the cockpit bullet proof, hatchet proof, whatever. Anyway, I think we need to expand our rail system more. It makes no sense to me for goods getting shipped across the country by trucks, when it could be done more fuel efficiently by train. Save the trucks for relatively local delivery. People can use trains just as easily as products.

Tragedy is always sad, and terrible, however... A quote from Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Danger can NEVER be fully kept away, so we shouldn't allow ourselves to be trampled in the name of security either. This same argument can be used for gun control too. The founding fathers meant for people to be able to keep arms so that if government ever got too full of itself, the people could take control back, even if force was necessary. Another quote, this time from Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This is PRECISELY why the STATES are supposed to be controlling Militias and the U.S. Army (according to the Constitution) shouldn't even exist. Back during the Civil War the individual states provided the various infantries and cavalries, NOT the Federal Government. According to the Constitution, during war time, those militias come under the flag of the Federal government, but then return to the states during peace time. The U.S. Army is unconstitutional as it exists today. Only the Navy, and by extension the Marine Corp falls under the direct control of the Federal Government. I think the U.S. Air Force might have too, although, I think they should also be with the States as they are somewhat today, in the form of the Air National Guard. The government hasn't had to make any excuses for this, although I think that if they did, they would probably site the Korean War which technically hasn't ended. We're just in a state of ceasefire.

I got off on a tangent, but there you go.

[Goose]

Technically, I'm pretty sure that the United States never declared war on Korea. Remember, at the time it wasn't war, it was a "police action" in response to a United Nations resolution. Also, how is the Army not under the control of the federal government?