Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
akisame 01-Jan-07, 00:55	What is your action threshhold? It is said that humans aren't really happy unless they have something to complain about. Many of us have ranted against the Neo-conservative gang, religion, liberal bias, Iraq, and a number of other issues. Where do these posts sit on the scale of moan-to-action scale? In the threads above especially, feelings seem to run quite strong. I do not doubt people have legitimate concerns, evidence to support their views and a desire for things to change. At what point are we ready to actually do something, though? Are our posts an attempt to spur ourselves and others into action, or just a way to let off steam? What have people actually done about the/our "worst President ever" or current mideast policy, for example? Some of us will say we have voted against the US administration, but is that sufficient if we really feel the neo-cons are aiding the enemy and fleecing the country - and world? (Equally so for those who feel these attack are unjustified and that these attacks are libel against a sitting president - even seditious.) How do we decide when an issue is important enough that we need to take personal action, or whether our actions will be worth the effort? Is voting enough? I do not intend this as a criticism; I know nothing of what anyone has done outside GK, and so am not in a position to judge. If I were to accuse others of being merely hecklers, I would be almost equally guilty: on the neo-cons, for example, outside of voting in elections, trying to make a few intelligent posts and comments here and elsewhere to get get/keep people thinking, and a single letter to my representative urging impeachment, I have done precious little to act upon my opinions - though I do feel this group is doing real harm to country and world. Is the threat not personal enough for me, or do I feel my time would be wasted? I'm not sure. If you feel these issues are too much for the power brokers, is there some occasion where you have acted to make a difference? Defended someone, helped right a wrong, or effected a change because the status quo seemed unfair? In short, what kind of situation gets you involved in the solution?
leo_london 01-Jan-07, 04:15	I am so lazy I can only aspire to lethargy. Seriously..I have stood up to be counted for individuals, in court and in several " unpleasant " situations. Politically...I have never really bothered, except on a few very local issues.
soulcrates 01-Jan-07, 23:17	I seem to get involved in any situation that I don't think is fair. In real life, I've been known to stick my nose into other people's business so to speak, if I feel they're out of line. For instance, as a server a woman came in with her child, and when I was taking their drink orders the mother slapped the young boy in his face. I then went to the back and made this poor little boy a chocolate milk, and refused to get his mother a drink. When I returned with the milk, I watched as this little boy's frown actually turned into a semi smile, until his mother then wanted her drink as well. I told her that she had 2 minutes to leave, because I had just called the CPS, and a police officer was in the mall on his way to the restaurant. She tried to call my bluff, but the fear took over, and she left without further argument. On the internet, I like to discuss topics which people tend to ignore. This way it's in the front of their minds when they're confronted with it, and seem to notice it more when they're thinking about it. Just because one person cannot do anything to take power away from the Bourgeouisie, he can influence great numbers of people simply by providing truth in an otherwise deceitful world. The butterfly effect comes to mind.
soulcrates 02-Jan-07, 22:27	I like the old put yourself in their shoes idea, and if I've ever been in their shoes, and know how it feels, it becomes very easy for me to take action. Especially if I remember the powerless feeling that this individual, or group of individuals must feel. People like to think that I've had it great in life, because I was born with blonde hair and blue eyes, yet they refuse to believe that at times, I've had it just as bad as them, if not worse. I know what it's like to be stereotyped, or to just be treated unfairly, and that doesn't change because of my skin color, or gender. It may not happen as much, but it still happens, and I know what it feels like. Which is why I do my best to keep my own friends from doing it to other people, and then in the future they do it to help someone else, just as I have. The old Pay it forward idea. I get people still telling me things years after we last spoke, who say, "I did this, and it was because of you". It makes it all worth it in the end, no matter how many enemies I may have made because of my actions. They weren't people who I would have wanted as friends anyway. You know the saying, who needs enemies with friends like those?
captaingoodvibes 02-Jan-07, 22:59	The illegal invasion of iraq got me out to my first public rally. Oterwise my "action" has been pretty much limited to voting (compulsory in oz anyways) and forum discussions
soulcrates 02-Jan-07, 23:57	Voting is compulsory in Australia? Wow, that's something. I never knew that, seems like a strange way to celebrate democracy and freedom, by forcing people to vote.
leo_london 03-Jan-07, 01:26	Wow, that's something. I never knew that, seems like a strange way to celebrate democracy and freedom, by forcing people to vote. Yes, looking at our choices in the UK..it would be like forcing turkeys to vote for Christmas. Mark ..How many spoilt ballot papers do you get in Aussie-land ?
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 01:36	well strickly speaking, it's obligatory to turn up and get ticked off. I've no idea the proportion of spoilt ballot papers, I'll sniff around if it's not too hard. Of course that's a recognised right to do so. It can be argued many ways of course but most Ozzies would consider it a minor obligation to support democracy rather than a draconian social control measure. Another illustration of cultural diference.....along with the increased gun controls that have been overwhelmingly considered a positive measure since the port arther masacre 8 or so years back
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 01:40	oh and the fine's only $50 (about 20 pounds) and easy enough to ask for an exemption
saintinsanity 03-Jan-07, 03:22	I guess I haven't reached my threshold I have been plenty pissed off. I almost infested my crazy neighbor lady with a thousand crickets (but I didn't). As far as politics go, I feel helpless. The popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing and who the hell is in the electoral college? Whatever. Sometimes I really really really want to do something. I'm talking about something big, that all of us can do. I want to connect with all of you in a way that makes anything other than action impossible. But the action threshhold is tricky. Everyone wants to do something. The question always comes back to us: What do we do? Lets vote, ooh, lets write a letter to our congressman. Yeah right. Lets try, just as an experiment, taking a hundred rifles to the capital building and firing them into the ground....just to see what happens.
soulcrates 03-Jan-07, 03:27	Pawn, you can't be serious! "Lets try, just as an experiment, taking a hundred rifles to the capital building and firing them into the ground....just to see what happens." The best thing I can see happening from this would be your arrest. The worst would be countless dead people with rifles.
saintinsanity 03-Jan-07, 03:37	Can't I?? OK then, how about this? We get a million people together with bubble solution, and we surround the white house and blow bubbles at it! I think it could have a profound affect on the world. Seriously, what can we do?
soulcrates 03-Jan-07, 06:50	Good question. Petitions are a thought, but still only a small chance of actually getting anything accomplished with them. The goal is to learn how to run for an elected officials position, to where you can actually have the power to change things for the better, whether it's just your town, county, or state. While you're studying for this, you will be meeting people with the same ideas, and with different ideas that you can use to better your chances of winning. It's like selling a product, but that product is you. You're doing fine on this forum, now try it on the public forum. Take a public speech class, it will help.
flcrackers 03-Jan-07, 14:24	markallen... regarding the following, you wrote... <<along with the increased gun controls that have been overwhelmingly considered a positive measure since the port arther masacre 8 or so years back >> What kind of gun control do you guys have downunder? Seems to me that if all your guns were taken away, then only the Government has them and they can force you all to the polls at gun point, or keep you away from the polls.
soulcrates 03-Jan-07, 14:33	Wow, "The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree which claimed 35 lives and 37 wounded at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, eventually pleaded guilty to the crime[1] and was given a life sentence without possibility of parole in Risdon Prison." Perhaps another factor was the lack of a death penalty for someone who killed 35 people. Sounds like the punishment is not even close to enough to deter someone from opening fire on this many people. Although we did have Timothy McVeigh, who was executed, and I assume knew he would be if captured, so there is an argument that it doesn't stop people from committing crimes. To argue both sides fairly, McVeigh thought he was attacking government and military, while Martin Bryant from the Port Arthur massacre knew he was attacking civilians.
zorroloco 03-Jan-07, 14:37	question as you know, i am a bit unsure of where i stand vis-a-vis gun control. in practice, if guns are controlled, criminals and govt. will still be able to have them while the good guys (us) would be unarmed. on the other hand, very many accidental deaths and crime of passion murders would be avoided. but we cannot get rid of all the guns. my question is to jd, crackers, thumper, soul and others who think that we need guns to protect us from a military or fascistic takeover. what kind of chance do you think the us citizenry would have against the us military? like the iraqi resistance? able to create chaos, but perhaps not win? even if we are armed to the teeth with automatic guns, they have jets and tanks and bazookas and mortars. what % of americans do you think are prepared to fight the us army?
zorroloco 03-Jan-07, 14:51	threshhold i was heavily involved in social, environmental, and international human rights activism for about 6 years (86-92). i had reached a level of education where i was so outraged by what was happening in the world that i had to be trying to change it. sadly, i later reached the point in my education where i realized that we are in too deep and nothing i could do was going to change our headlong sprint to extinction. i then lost the passion and stepped out of organized activism. still, my sense of ethics requires me to do what i can. i remain involved to a lesser degree in a few chosen areas. i give money to organizations i agree with. i organize a block watch in my neighborhood. my main activism is teaching kids to think - thinking is subversive, you know. in many ways it is a deeper type of activism than political action, although that is important too. i try to drive seldom, buy organic, and leave as small a footprint as i can without feeling like a martyr i chose not to procreate because i would be too distraught about the world i would be leaving my children. while i worry about all the young people, it is different when they are not your kids. i can try my best, but not take it too personally when i see us pissing away our future.
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 15:01	hehe yes indeed .Thts what i mean. there is a lot of cultural diference on the issue. We worry a lot les about our government stealing our rights and a lot more about masacres and gun homicides. The stats in the gun control thread show the positve effcts in that realm at last. Our ""gun control" was a large and obligatory buyback scheme followed by strict controls on ANY gun ownership. farmers of course can have guns via a licence and police check with controls on how guns are stored etc. military multishot style weapons are banned absolutely. i am not a fan of ur current administration in nmany domains but this was one measure that (through my eyes) had major positive effects. there was the direct issue of the guns but it also made explic our choices as a nation in terms of what direction we wished to travel. i'm guessing that many folks would think of oz as a kine of bridge between UK and US in terms of our anglo heritage though the truth would be a lot more cosmopolitan/Asian mix these days.
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 15:03	** sorry, time passed** my reply above was to crackers
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 15:50	soul "The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree which claimed 35 lives and 37 wounded at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, eventually pleaded guilty to the crime[1] and was given a life sentence without possibility of parole in Risdon Prison." <<Perhaps another factor was the lack of a death penalty for someone who killed 35 people. Sounds like the punishment is not even close to enough to deter someone from opening fire on this many people. Although we did have Timothy McVeigh, who was executed, and I assume knew he would be if captured, so there is an argument that it doesn't stop people from committing crimes. To argue both sides fairly, McVeigh thought he was attacking government and military, while Martin Bryant from the Port Arthur massacre knew he was attacking civilians.>> Again, perhaps cultural diference in the way we choose to view things. We wouldwork from the premis that some folk will occassionally "go mad" and act out innaproprpately....so we go for harm minimisation with gun controls. We believe that as a civilized nation, that sanctity of human life needs to be embedded in our legal system. If folks arent safe to be in society, we will lock them up. I dont believe Bryant, mc veigh etc would be deterrered by a harsh/death penalty. bryant is believed to be 'mad /damaged rather than evil i suspect a part of the agenda with these extreme acts may sometimes be to "go out in a blaze of glory". From here it can sometimes seem (through my eyes anyways) that the US society views these issues far more from an individualist against the sytem lens....what could be called perhaps the "John Wayne school of diplomacy", whre those with the biggest guns win.
flcrackers 03-Jan-07, 16:38	jeff...in responce to... ...what kind of chance do you think the us citizenry would have against the us military? like the iraqi resistance? able to create chaos, but perhaps not win? even if we are armed to the teeth with automatic guns, they have jets and tanks and bazookas and mortars. what % of americans do you think are prepared to fight the us army?... Guerrilla warfare would be more like it. Like the Irish IRA, Iraqi insurgency if you may. The Jewish gettos in Poland during WWII. Create chaos would be the order of the day. As far as their tanks and bazookas and mortars, these can be captured etc. Planes can be captured also, there's plenty of ex-pilot patriots. Can an insurgancy like that regain control of America, "only with the popular support of the people". Sound familiar? (Che) Sort of reminds me of a movie called "Red Dawn", remember the context? But then again, people would have to be willing to die for an idea. But then, when you stop to think about it, they would have to convince every person in the US military to turn their guns on the American people. That may a problem for them. Believe it or not, part of US military training is to be prepared to resist any order deemed to be illegal or immoral. Of course I'm just talking off the record here.
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 16:47	maybe a tangent but i'm prompted to mention Mahatma Ghandi. He managed to eject the British from India DESPITE their power of arms. He mobilised a nation through the power of moral legitimacy and peaceful resistance. Now there's a leader to admire!!
oldguard 03-Jan-07, 16:48	Odd Frankly up here in Australia we find it weird if not downright scary that the Americans think that gun ownership is necessary to defend themselves against their own government. Our democracy works well. Any attempt by the government to carry out anything unconstitutional would be picked up by members of the opposing party and if necessary challeged in the courts. As for an earlier comment about compulsory voting, or more correctly compulsory turning up to have your name ticked off the register. I am in two minds and both are unsatisfactory. We can have non compulsory voting and a 40% turnout which I think brings democracy into disrepute or force all to vote with the idiots, feeble minded and plain don't cares having an equal say with those who are genuinely concerned. But a non compulsory system does not guarantee the feeble minded will not turn up to vote anyway. I have turned up to vote and on at least one occasion and written on the bottom of the ballot paper, "none of the above." Most people in Australia are for strict gun controls but not all of course. Generally the man on the land, having a legitimate use for firearms can have one and registered members of gun clubs. Executing the Port Arthur killer would solve nothing. There are plenty of statistics to show that capital punishment is not a deterent and murder rates in Britain and Australia did not increase when capital punishment was abolished.
zorroloco 03-Jan-07, 16:52	crackers i agree. a guerrilla war. and weapons can be captured. this includes firearms, which somewhat weakens the argument for guns, but nevermind. soldiers can be convinced to do a lot of things that we would not consider ethical. certainly some soldiers would refuse to fire on americans...and they would be shot, and the rest would shoot americans. how likely do you think it is that we will have a military coup?
captaingoodvibes 03-Jan-07, 16:54	oldguard Perhaps hollywood movies are to blame? maybe folks have actually started to believe that Mel Gibson/Arnie running up yet another street holding a gun is all that protects them from chaos.
leo_london 03-Jan-07, 17:23	oldguard ..Up there in Australia ?..have we got to start saying " up-over " instead of " down-under "
oldguard 03-Jan-07, 18:59	Leo As I explained on another thread, persons in the northern hemisphere have been holding the atlas upsidedown. Australia really is at the top. Don't believe me - check the cricket. And that's from an ex pat.
captaingoodvibes 04-Jan-07, 02:20	Leo <<Yes, looking at our choices in the UK..it would be like forcing turkeys to vote for Christmas. Mark ..How many spoilt ballot papers do you get in Aussie-land ?   >> Sad git that i am, i researched this: generally it's less tham 5% though up to 11.8% in an inner urban low SOG area. Informal voting tends to decrease with affluence/education. Source: jackman.stanford.edu" target="_blank">-> jackman.stanford.edu
leo_london 04-Jan-07, 08:35	That's not sad Mark..its interesting and I am most grateful to you for taking the trouble. I would have expected a higher percentage, if only out of sheer cussedness from the Aussies. It reminds me of the movie " Brewsters Millions ", when Richard Pryor stands for election on a " none of the above " ticket...and wins.

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.