Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:42 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4554AE27.CBE6D283(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. >> >> The mindset that it is insurance is indeed part of what we need to >> change. >> Call the government-supplied military "providing for the common defense", >> and everybody accepts it. Call it "war insurance" and suddenly it takes >> on >> a different tenor, as in "hey, you couldn't afford war insurance, I guess >> it's your turn to die today." Or to take this comical analogy one step >> further, why not consider health care to be a "war on disease". There >> are >> parallels to actual war...everybody is affected, it kills lots of people, >> and it has great societal costs if not taken care of. > > Interesting analogy. > > I've seen no-one suggest that the Army, Navy and Air Force be put under > private > ownership. Only a matter of time...
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej234l$8qk_015(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455368BB.5A9A6A6C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>And the first reason is going to become ubiquitous as industry is less > and >>> >>less willing to pay for the health care of its employees. >>> > >>> > Industry can't afford it. >>> >>> Yes, you are correct. It doesn't change the fact that the number of > people >>> actually having effective health insurance under the current system in >>> this >>> country is rapidly decreasing toward a limit of zero. >> >>Something similar is happening here wrt pensions too. >> >>I don't think private companies are up to the task of providing critical >>services like this very well. > > Ours are, too. That's because the pensions are transforming > from a collected pot of money by the employees into an insurance > policy. It's no longer real money. > > The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed > by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed > to insurance companies. Which is why a state run system is "better." Part of the problem in the UK is our pensions got "privatised" and the providers have to turn a profit.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:52 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45539D42.503C06E3(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> We are about to introduce a national ID card > > Are we ? Yes, unless the government actually sees sense (http://www.identitycards.gov.uk/index.asp) This quote from the Identity and Passport Service: >> (unthinkable for British >> people who traditionally have never needed that, nor even need a passport >> to >> leave the country), > > Americans will shortly need permission to leave the country ! > > >> our "left wing" government has tried to introduce trial >> without jury, the police can stop and search on the most tenuous basis, >> if >> you are even slightly suspected of a "terrorist" related offence you can >> be >> detained for days without legal counsel (etc.). > > I thought you're allowed a solicitor. > > Graham >
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 14:02 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45539D42.503C06E3(a)hotmail.com... > Sorry, posted last one too soon! > T Wake wrote: > >> We are about to introduce a national ID card > > Are we ? Yes, unless the government sees sense. (http://www.identitycards.gov.uk/index.asp) This quote from the identity and passport service: "Being able to prove who we are is a fundamental requirement in today's society. The development of ID cards builds on the changes being made to passports to provide a secure and straightforward way to safeguard personal identities from misuse. The Identity Cards Act 2006 creates the legal framework for the scheme." Personally I find this shocking. The stage at which the citizen has to prove who they are to the government (IMHO of course) overturns the basic assumptions of democracy. Some other related links are http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/passports-and-immigration/id-cards/ - states the ID Card Act came into law on 30 Mar 06 with the first cards being issued 2008/09. The BBC have a page with Q&A on ID Cards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3127696.stm) which identifies some of the crazy ways people think ID cards will help. One worrying thing from the BBC site: "Will the cards be compulsory? From 2010, all passport applicants will be issued with ID cards but if Labour wins the next election it will pass legislation to make them compulsory for all UK citizens whether they have a passport or not, the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke said. There are no plans to make it compulsory to carry them." >> (unthinkable for British >> people who traditionally have never needed that, nor even need a passport >> to >> leave the country), > > Americans will shortly need permission to leave the country ! A shame if it happens. >> our "left wing" government has tried to introduce trial >> without jury, the police can stop and search on the most tenuous basis, >> if >> you are even slightly suspected of a "terrorist" related offence you can >> be >> detained for days without legal counsel (etc.). > > I thought you're allowed a solicitor. Not for the first 48 hours and if the Secretary of State decides it is ok this can be extended to 7 days. (Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005), it builds on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Powers) act 1974 and extends it significantly.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 14:13
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:28d7l29uofp8nriijbl2h4mvntbaqrvei4(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:05:18 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:toL4h.116$yE6.3(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... >>> Something I've always wondered.... Orwell was English, right? Was >>> "1984" >>> a cautionary tale against what he saw happening in England after WWII >>> ("Ingsoc")? If so, it's interesting that US society has in some ways >>> come >>> a lot closer to Big Brother than I am given to understand UK society >>> has. >> >>The UK is definitely along that road. CCTV coverage in cities is nearly >>total. > > Indeed. To be fair, most people are in favour of CCTV everywhere. It > makes me feel a lot safer, anyway. It is a double edged sword. CCTV does make people feel safer and there are indications it does actually reduce crime. The problem is who vets the people who watch the CCTV. As each freedom is removed the citizens abilities to excise "democracy" is reduced. As a semi-spurious example, if by some nightmare a government came to power which said all people named Ben had to be monitored 24 hours a day and couldnt speak to other people, there already exists a situation where you can be monitored. I am aware that that particular scenario is far from ever coming true though :-) >> We are about to introduce a national ID card (unthinkable for British >>people who traditionally have never needed that, nor even need a passport >>to >>leave the country), our "left wing" government has tried to introduce >>trial >>without jury, <...> > > Don't forget the recent partial removal of the "double jeopardy" rules > too. Again, in that particular case I tend to agree with the changes. Yes, in that case I agree. The problem here is (obviously all this is IMHO) that law is supposed to be impartial and unemotional. In the UK we change laws to pander to the press and public opinion. Where do they draw the line. The changes to double jeopardy in the Steven Lawrence case seem "fair" but the problem is trial two is likely to be a farce. How can you pick an impartial, unbiased jury when the case facts have already be pre-judged as guilty enough to allow a re-trial? I suspect we both agree with the change to the law in Lawrence case because we have both decided the defendants are actually guilty. Does that not strike you as a strange way to run trials? >> <...> the police can stop and search on the most tenuous basis, if >>you are even slightly suspected of a "terrorist" related offence you can >>be >>detained for days without legal counsel (etc.). > > They wouldn't do that in the USA would they? Ah no, they do it in Cuba > instead and pretend it's the USA. Unless it is more convenient to say > it's Cuba, of course. And it's years there, not days... Yep and that coming from the supposed bastions of freedom and democracy. It is good to see hypocrisy is alive an well in the Western world. |