You know what's funny to me? First thing I thought when I realized what I was looking at (a laptop), was "I'd rather have that than that POS Macbook they just took most of the features out of (66% battery life, -1 USB port, no ethernet, no DVD or CD drive, -25% CPU speed, -50% RAM capacity.)
Synethesia is also a common component of an LSD trip. It is very interesting. But what this tells us is that at least one thing that causes it can be reproduced with drugs, so it would be useful to run a cat scan and other diagnostics on someone undergoing the experience, see what kinds of changes go on. Of course, the perception of the cat scan would interfere, but who knows what that would do. :-)
Alex, there are handrails on the bridge and around both lofts; the pics we have online were taken before they were up. There's even a handrail on the stairs. :-)
Rosi, no offense taken. The submission wasn't really about the conversion, it was about the bookshelves in the ceiling of the library.
Ted, thanks. Seriously. If I ever grow up, I'll consider my life a failure. At age 51, someone thinks I organize my half-built home like a teenager. I'm truly flattered.
Of course there's a correlation. He killed living, feeling, thinking animals to eat. Animals called "people." When you eat "meat", as you like to say to distance yourself from your act, you are doing the same thing. The difference is that in YOUR case, you are eating the defenseless innocents who have no real chance of defending themselves from you either with regard to their deaths, or even in the legal sense.
Most humans spend a lot of time pretending they are different from other animals in a way that gives them the innate right to kill, enslave, and otherwise abuse the non-humans. It isn't so. It was never so. It is just an act of cowardice.
No question, not everyone fights on either side. Of the 1.6 million presently in the armed forces, as I mentioned, many are REMF (rear echelon...) and not fighters; they manage the logistics chains, transport fuel and material, plan, etc. Of the citizens, only those who are able-bodied and willing will fight. Picking them out is the trick for any military enforcement. Because if they attack the citizens indiscriminately, they will all fight, within the limits of who can lift a rifle (no one under, say, six years old.) Either the military behaves, or it will be swamped.
But as I said, it isn't going to happen anyway. Otherwise, it already would have. The only right we really have left is the right not to quarter soldiers in our homes. All the others are conditional at best, and illusory at worst. Literally every other point in the bill of rights has been made inconsequential to the government with regard to our ability as citizens to count on them.
Roger, way to go. It warms my heart that civic heroes such as yourself guard the Intertubes, ready to contribute significant and thought-provoking content when important issues come under discussion by concerned citizens. You're a true patriot, man.
Now get out of your mom's basement and catch a little sunshine. Put on some clothes first, though.
So let's go with your 200:1 figure, despite the difference in quality and quantity of arms, education and motivation between Iraqis and Americans. Let us also go with the presumption that the entire armed forces would face down the entire civilian population. These are absolute worst-case assumptions.
The entire US armed forces consists of 1.366 million individuals, not all of whom by any means are front line animals, but again, let's assume they were. We'll also ignore the fact that as the number of military personnel diminishes, the effectiveness and morale drops, and as the supply chain is damaged as well. We'll just assume 200:1 right down the last grunt facing an enraged crowd - and even he gets 200 before they get him.
At 200:1 under these conditions, civilians would suffer 273 million deaths in order to kill every last member of the armed forces, leaving a remaining civilian population of about 27 million behind. Mostly babies who weren't fighting in the first place, I'd think. In other words, the military would lose, even in this most extreme case.
When you factor in the reality: That for every front line fighter, the military fields many REMFs who are not expected or particularly able to fight, and would never under any circumstances reach the effectiveness of the (relatively) elite troops in Iraq; that supplies would be cut off (after all, it is *us* who supply them), that many troops would refuse to participate in a war on their fellow citizens whom they have sworn an oath to protect, that as the armed forces suffer defeats, the arms and ammunition they have would fall into the hands of the civilians, that of that 1.366 million serving, only about a third are ground troops (for instance, the navy (the very small force of marines excepted) certainly isn't going to be a very effective tool to suppress US civilians, neither is the air force. It'll have to be done on the ground.) Also keep in mind that of the US civilian population, there are many combat veterans who would be enraged by an attack on the civilian population, and they know just what to do, because they were trained to do it against the soviets: Decapitate the leadership. From politicians, generals and captains on down to the sergeants and corporals, they get shot first.
It becomes apparent that while we would still certainly be talking about a bloody mess, the chance of the US military defeating the civilian population in a face to face conflict is just about zero.
So please, give it a rest.
Aside from all that, there will be no such conflict. Bush will be out of office in a year, people are a lot more worried about their healthcare than they are their liberties, and most vote along party lines without any regard for, much less knowledge of, issues of constitutional merit. Or lack thereof.
"The US military is prohibited from military action inside the US."
Not any longer. President Bush and our elected representatives have gutted the prohibition you refer to.
They have done so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the president to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.
Sources:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
What a beautiful piece of work. Just stunning.
Rosi, no offense taken. The submission wasn't really about the conversion, it was about the bookshelves in the ceiling of the library.
Ted, thanks. Seriously. If I ever grow up, I'll consider my life a failure. At age 51, someone thinks I organize my half-built home like a teenager. I'm truly flattered.
Pudifoot: No. :-)
Most humans spend a lot of time pretending they are different from other animals in a way that gives them the innate right to kill, enslave, and otherwise abuse the non-humans. It isn't so. It was never so. It is just an act of cowardice.
No question, not everyone fights on either side. Of the 1.6 million presently in the armed forces, as I mentioned, many are REMF (rear echelon...) and not fighters; they manage the logistics chains, transport fuel and material, plan, etc. Of the citizens, only those who are able-bodied and willing will fight. Picking them out is the trick for any military enforcement. Because if they attack the citizens indiscriminately, they will all fight, within the limits of who can lift a rifle (no one under, say, six years old.) Either the military behaves, or it will be swamped.
But as I said, it isn't going to happen anyway. Otherwise, it already would have. The only right we really have left is the right not to quarter soldiers in our homes. All the others are conditional at best, and illusory at worst. Literally every other point in the bill of rights has been made inconsequential to the government with regard to our ability as citizens to count on them.
Now get out of your mom's basement and catch a little sunshine. Put on some clothes first, though.
So let's go with your 200:1 figure, despite the difference in quality and quantity of arms, education and motivation between Iraqis and Americans. Let us also go with the presumption that the entire armed forces would face down the entire civilian population. These are absolute worst-case assumptions.
The entire US armed forces consists of 1.366 million individuals, not all of whom by any means are front line animals, but again, let's assume they were. We'll also ignore the fact that as the number of military personnel diminishes, the effectiveness and morale drops, and as the supply chain is damaged as well. We'll just assume 200:1 right down the last grunt facing an enraged crowd - and even he gets 200 before they get him.
At 200:1 under these conditions, civilians would suffer 273 million deaths in order to kill every last member of the armed forces, leaving a remaining civilian population of about 27 million behind. Mostly babies who weren't fighting in the first place, I'd think. In other words, the military would lose, even in this most extreme case.
When you factor in the reality: That for every front line fighter, the military fields many REMFs who are not expected or particularly able to fight, and would never under any circumstances reach the effectiveness of the (relatively) elite troops in Iraq; that supplies would be cut off (after all, it is *us* who supply them), that many troops would refuse to participate in a war on their fellow citizens whom they have sworn an oath to protect, that as the armed forces suffer defeats, the arms and ammunition they have would fall into the hands of the civilians, that of that 1.366 million serving, only about a third are ground troops (for instance, the navy (the very small force of marines excepted) certainly isn't going to be a very effective tool to suppress US civilians, neither is the air force. It'll have to be done on the ground.) Also keep in mind that of the US civilian population, there are many combat veterans who would be enraged by an attack on the civilian population, and they know just what to do, because they were trained to do it against the soviets: Decapitate the leadership. From politicians, generals and captains on down to the sergeants and corporals, they get shot first.
It becomes apparent that while we would still certainly be talking about a bloody mess, the chance of the US military defeating the civilian population in a face to face conflict is just about zero.
So please, give it a rest.
Aside from all that, there will be no such conflict. Bush will be out of office in a year, people are a lot more worried about their healthcare than they are their liberties, and most vote along party lines without any regard for, much less knowledge of, issues of constitutional merit. Or lack thereof.
Not any longer. President Bush and our elected representatives have gutted the prohibition you refer to.
They have done so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the president to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.
Sources:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
(5) towardfreedom.com