Old school media bias

[Guest guest]

This is from the January 2009 issue of Armchair General, p. 20. Dispatches.

"Bleeding Kansas" Part 1:

The Border War (1854-60), the pre-Civil War struggle between pro- and anti-slavery factions in Kansas Territory that produced lurid press accounts about "Bleeding Kansas," actually witnessed only 56 documented politically motivated killings. In some of the clashes the press promoted as "battles," no one was even injured.

"Bleeding Kansas" Part II:

During the same times frame, 583 killings took place in the California gold fields (1855), while over 1,200 murders occurred in San Francisco over a three year period. However, these were mostly ignored by a national press more interested in hyping "Bleeding Kansas" as a political issue in the run-up to the 1860 presidential election.

+++

So you can see, the media trying to influence an election is nothing new. Hyping violence for increased circulation is nothing new either. All those "civilian" murders were nothing compared to dreamed up violence over slavery. Lurid accounts of such fighting sold more papers than police blotter accounts of a dangerous city. It is the same way crime in the ghetto goes largely unreported, until it spills over into "civilized society" when people act shocked and horrified because an "honest citizen" was hurt. They act shocked for a little while until the media dangles the next bleeding corpse in front of their eyes for them to gasp and act indignant about.

It was this same desire to sell papers that got the US into the Spanish American War. Yellow Journalism as it used to be called is still with and it going strong.

Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

" All those " civilian " murders were nothing compared to dreamed up

violence over slavery. "

Yes, the media also ignored the fact that all the anti-gun laws Obama

voted for has resulted in Chicago exceeding last year's murder rate

midway through the year. What with their being fewer citizens with guns

to defend themselves, crooks and murders are running rampant.

This is what Obama wants for our country. This is also what the people

voted for and so this must be what they want too.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Can you juggle the murder rate with the gun accident and gun massacre

rate, for us?

Though your culture of having guns freely has never been close to

being introduced here in modern times, in the early 90s at the peak of

conservative thought being fashionable you heard a few campaigning

voices on the radio in favour of it. They said guns were only clamped

down on after WW1 to prevent the people having the means for a

communist revolution, and its none of the state's business to

interfere in sensible responsible citizen's sport and recreation.

These voices abruptly instantly disappeared after the Dunblane

massacre in 1996, when a man licesned for the sporting possession of

guns and for running clubs for boys turned out to be a psychopath who

broke into a primary school and shot a lot of small children at

random, then himself. The massacre's world media coverage then

distressingly inspired a copy massacre on the other side of the world,

at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

While here, nobody can now conceive of not favouring tight curbs on

guns by the state, after a single event, in the US you have suffered

these kinds of massacres recurrently, most notably in schools, and

last year we were up in arms about public opinion thinking Cho Seung-

Hui was an aspie. looking back, argued at the time that your

massacres happen in places where guns are controlled, hence removing

the deterrent. Okay then, the infants class in Dunblane should all

have had guns and they wouldn't have shot their sisters thinking they

were playing with a toy...

> Yes, the media also ignored the fact that all the anti-gun laws

Obama

> voted for has resulted in Chicago exceeding last year's murder rate

> midway through the year.

[Guest guest]

First off, in spite of what the media presents, most murders in the US are not committed with guns. Most of with knives and other weapons are just the person's hands and feet. By the same token, guns are used only in a minority of crimes. Like the press in the old days, gun crimes are more spectacular and attention grabbing than a victim getting beaten down by hand or just strongarmed into giving up their money.

Yes, we have had school and other mass shootings. Just as with Dunblane, each case was caused by an insane person. Those shootings were tragedies, but taking away all guns because of it is punishing the vast majority of legal gun owners for a handful of bad people. If we were to apply the same logic to cars, if one person deliberately rams their car into the crowd and kills or injures some people, or kids, then cars should be banned. As I understand it though, the UK is headed in that direction. Not only can't you own guns, but the government is coming after knives next.

In the US, the right to own guns is in the Constitution. The reason for gun ownership isn't for hunting or sport, but to balance the power of the government. The Framers wanted the people to be armed so that if the US government got too repressive, as England had, the people could revolt and topple it and put it back to the Constitutional basis.

Guns are also for self-protection. The US Supreme Court has ruled in at least 2 cases that the police exist to maintain civil order, not to protect citizens. Owning a gun is a good deterrent. Statistics show that guns are used close to 2 million times per year to prevent crimes, most of the time without even being fired. In most jurisdictions, you have the right to shoot an intruder in your house, if you are threatened on your property, or to protect your life or the life of another. That is as it should be in a civil society.

Gun ownership does not mean the Wild West (which itself has been portrayed as far more violent than it really was). High gun ownership rates goes hand in hand with low crime. Heavy gun restrictions typically means higher crime, especially gun crimes because the criminals still get them.

Anyway, governments don't take away guns out of concern for safety. They do it because they want more power. The UK is turning into a police state and the people have been disarmed and can't resist, they aren't even a deterrent. We may face that situation in the US before too long, unfortunately.

Can you juggle the murder rate with the gun accident and gun massacre rate, for us?Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

The Port Arthur Massacre happened prior to strict gun control in Australia. Gun control laws were put in place as a result of that incident. If we had those laws prior to that incident, there is no way that a man with an intellectual disability would have been able to purchase a semi automatic weapon through a newspaper advert. He still might have had access to a shotgun and another weapon (not semi automatic) which had been owned by his father so he could have shot people but he would not have been able to kill 12 people and wound 9 in 15 seconds. My lover was there that day and I asked him if people carrying weapons would have made a difference. As a farmer, he owns rifles and is a good shot. He thought that it would have made no difference to the incident in the cafe because it happened too fast but outside, could have been stopped. However he also said that the crowds, confusion and panic was such that other people would have been likely to be hurt too. Overall, he thought the death toll would still be high but that different people would have died.

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_17170183-australia-s-gun-law-reforms-faster-falls-firearm-deaths-firearm.htm

I am quite happy for Americans to choose not to have gun control but I would be very upset if the pro gun lobby was successful here.

Re: Old school media bias

Can you juggle the murder rate with the gun accident and gun massacre rate, for us?

Though your culture of having guns freely has never been close to being introduced here in modern times, in the early 90s at the peak of conservative thought being fashionable you heard a few campaigning voices on the radio in favour of it. They said guns were only clamped down on after WW1 to prevent the people having the means for a communist revolution, and its none of the state's business to interfere in sensible responsible citizen's sport and recreation. These voices abruptly instantly disappeared after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, when a man licesned for the sporting possession of guns and for running clubs for boys turned out to be a psychopath who broke into a primary school and shot a lot of small children at random, then himself. The massacre's world media coverage then distressingly inspired a copy massacre on the other side of the world, at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

While here, nobody can now conceive of not favouring tight curbs on guns by the state, after a single event, in the US you have suffered these kinds of massacres recurrently, most notably in schools, and last year we were up in arms about public opinion thinking Cho Seung-

Hui was an aspie. looking back, argued at the time that your massacres happen in places where guns are controlled, hence removing the deterrent. Okay then, the infants class in Dunblane should all have had guns and they wouldn't have shot their sisters thinking they were playing with a toy...

> Yes, the media also ignored the fact that all the anti-gun laws Obama > voted for has resulted in Chicago exceeding last year's murder rate > midway through the year. ------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

Like I said in the other post: punishing the majority for the actions of a few is always a bad thing. What can go wrong? Well...

" A farmer's wife died and her son was badly injured after a raider tried to steal fuel at a County Durham farm. Police said and Rosemary Dove saw a man taking red diesel from a pump at East House Farm in Bishop Middleham, near Sedgefield, on Sunday night. Mr Dove and son gave chase to a nearby field, where the younger man was hit by the getaway vehicle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7469216.stm"

and

"

Rural crime increased for the first time in four years in 2002 with burglars targeting horse tack and trailers, "quad bikes" and garden statues.

Countryside thefts increased by 5.7 per cent overall, according to insurers. Northern Ireland suffered the brunt of the increase, with the cost of rural theft rising by 75 per cent, while the cost of claims in the South East and East Anglia fell by 33 per cent.

Expensive tools such as welders, chain saws and power drills were the most regularly stolen items from farms and garden sheds.

Thefts of four-wheel-drive vehicles, tractors and all terrain vehicles also rose in 2002, in addition to the pilfering of diesel from farms and hauliers' yards.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1434515/Countryside-crime-increases.html"

and

"

An international criminal gang have set their sights on stealing a new type of loot that is making them millions, top-of-the-range tractors.

Hundreds of the cumbersome agricultural machines are being swiped from farms across rural Britain and smuggled abroad in an operation worth £3 million a year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576153/Tractors-the-loot-of-choice-for-modern-thieves.html"

+++

These are just a few of the stories out there, not counting the ones about the general increase in crime rates after England banned guns.

A few years ago also, a farmer tried to protect his property when the police refused to help him. He ended up in prison for merely threatening the robbers and lost his farm while in prison for the obvious reason that he couldn't work it and make payments.

None of this would be happening if farmers were armed, allowed to protect themselves and had police more interesting in fighting crime than strongarming unarmed civilians at traffic stops.

The Port Arthur Massacre happened prior to strict gun control in Australia. Gun control laws were put in place as a result of that incident. Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Old school media bias

Like I said in the other post: punishing the majority for the actions of a few is always a bad thing. What can go wrong? Well...

" A farmer's wife died and her son was badly injured after a raider tried to steal fuel at a County Durham farm. Police said and Rosemary Dove saw a man taking red diesel from a pump at East House Farm in Bishop Middleham, near Sedgefield, on Sunday night. Mr Dove and son gave chase to a nearby field, where the younger man was hit by the getaway vehicle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7469216.stm"

and

"

Rural crime increased for the first time in four years in 2002 with burglars targeting horse tack and trailers, "quad bikes" and garden statues.

Countryside thefts increased by 5.7 per cent overall, according to insurers. Northern Ireland suffered the brunt of the increase, with the cost of rural theft rising by 75 per cent, while the cost of claims in the South East and East Anglia fell by 33 per cent.

0D

Expensive tools such as welders, chain saws and power drills were the most regularly stolen items from farms and garden sheds.

Thefts of four-wheel-drive vehicles, tractors and all terrain vehicles also rose in 2002, in addition to the pilfering of diesel from farms and hauliers' yards.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1434515/Countryside-crime-increases.html"

and

"

An international criminal gang have set their sights on stealing a new type of loot that is making them millions, top-of-the-range tractors.

Hundreds of the cumbersome agricultural machines are being swiped from farms across rural Britain and smuggled abroad in an operation worth £3 million a year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576153/Tractors-the-loot-of-choice-for-modern-thieves.html"

+++

These are just a few of the stories out there, not counting the ones about the general increase in crime rates after England banned guns.

A few years ago also, a farmer tried to protect his property when the police refused to help him. He ended up in prison for merely threatening the robbers and lost his farm while in prison for the obvious reason that he couldn't work it and make payments.

None20of this would be happening if farmers were armed, allowed to protect themselves and had police more interesting in fighting crime than strongarming unarmed civilians at traffic stops.

The Port Arthur Massacre happened prior to strict gun control in Australia. Gun control laws were put in place as a result of that incident.

Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

Tis the season to save your money! Get the new AOL Holiday Toolbar for money saving offers and gift ideas.

[Guest guest]

Even before gun control, we were not allowed to shoot trespassers or burgulars. Btw while crime has risen in Britain, after gun control rapes and murders have dropped. Also, the crime rate has been rising since the mid 1950s. It is too simple to attribute this only to gun control. There are socio-economic factors which impact on crime rates too. I can't discuss this in relation to the USA because I have never lived there and have no understanding of that culture. BTW in Britain, farmers are allowed to own firearms, just as they are in Australia so I don't think the fact that the man in the story was run over can be blamed on guns. If they had shot him, that could be blamed on guns. I also wonder what is going on in the counties of South East and East Anglia. The value of criminal action there has decreased by 33%. That seems to be quite a lot. BTW anyone over the age of 14 may apply and be granted a certificate to use a shot gun on their own property. They are just not allowed to threaten or shoot people as is permitted in the USA. Its about cultural values and is not right or wrong.

[Guest guest]

Gun laws vary from state to state and even by locality. It also depends on the local police and prosecutors.

In general though: if someone breaks into your house or threatens you or another on your property, you an shoot them. You can't necessarily shoot them for stealing property, but you can confront them or order them off of your property. If they run, you are supposed to let them go. If they resist, you may be able to shoot them, but that is less clear cut, though if they have a gun it would probably be justifiable to shoot them.

Citizens are often arrested or charged by the police even in self-defense cases so that the case can be examined to determine if everything was on the up and up. Usually it is. Only rarely is a homeowner actually taken to trial for shooting someone in their house or who was threatening their family. Shooting in the defense of another is trickier, like the cases of a man shooting a man who was trying to kill their girlfriend or wife or attempting to stop a rape or the like. Those can go either way and are heavily influenced by witnesses and the jury itself.

You also have other oddities, like home and business owners protecting their property from looters being arrested and hauled off by the police, only for the looters to get into the place, loot and then burn it. That wouldn't have happened had the armed owner still been there, and if the police did their job and protected citizens against the mob rather than vice versa.

The best bet is to get a book of current laws on self-defense in your locality and go by that. I've got an older one for Virginia and I go by that. I also don't have a concealed carry license and don't carry a pistol because of potential legal problems. I do, however, carry a stungun, which I have used once, and a small knife, which I haven't. Mostly I use observation and common sense to avoid trouble when I'm out, though there have been a few times when I did wish I had a pistol on me. As for the house, I've got options other than guns and might use them first.

I doubt very much that Americans are 'allowed to threaten or shoot people' willy nilly without justification and without using common sense.Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... They are just not allowed to

threaten or shoot people as is permitted in the USA ... <snip> ... "

I doubt very much that Americans are 'allowed to threaten or shoot

people' willy nilly without justification and without using common

sense.

In fact, over the years, I remember reading in newspapers and watching

on television reporting on Americans who either threatened or shot

people with a gun and who were charged with a criminal offence. Even

people who were only defending their property after a criminal had

broken into the matrimonial home.

In other words, just because Americans are guaranteed the 'right to

bear arms' does not mean that they are 'allowed to threaten or shoot

people.' Even with justification, Americans are held accountable for

their actions ... whether a gun is used in immaterial.

Raven

[Guest guest]

For civilians it is just like with the police: you are accountable for every bullet you fire. No matter where or how you shoot, if you make that decision, where ever that bullet goes and whatever it hits, you are accountable for it. That's why you make sure you have good backstops when target shooting and also why most cities and towns have laws against firing within city limits, except for self-defense, but even then you are accountable for your rounds. If you hit the bad guy that's one thing, but if you miss and hit a bystander, now that's big trouble.

In most places courts side with property owners, but like I said, shooting someone for breaking into your car isn't really a good idea, but scaring them off with a gun should be OK. It depends on the state and all that. Some places have the "castle doctrine" in the state code, which makes it easier for someone to defend themselves, but other places are more hostile.

In most places you have to apply for a concealed carry permit, which is largely up to the local magistrate and judges. Some are more willing to issue than others. These checks take into account the applicant's mental and physical fitness and often require a training course. Most states that allow concealed carry honor permits issued in other states.

However, a concealed carry permit is not a hunting license. If you pull or use your piece, you are still bound by all laws. So, even if you have a permit and shoot someone, you will still in all likelihood be investigated and if you used the gun illegally, you would be charged, even if only for brandishing a firearm.

There are also open carry laws in many places. Around my place in Alabama, you can openly carry just about any legal firearm, though you probably will worry people if you are seen walking around town with a long gun or even a pistol. That would mean a visit by the sheriff or state troopers and they'd probably ask you to put the gun away, even though it is legal to carry it openly.

From what you posted, it appears I am correct when I wrote that Americans aren't allowed to threaten or shoot people willy nilly without justification and without using common sense. There are rules by which to abide and regulations in place for those who wish to carry firearms. Thanks for the additional information, .RavenLife should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

I would agree on the cars. I really hate driving and almost never do it. However, the navigation websites don't always pick the best routes, or even safe ones. One time I had the machine pick a route and it went straight through the worst part of town. Having a manual or verbal override would be a must. That way you could tell the car "take the next right" and things like that, verbally guiding to where you want to go. An Escape and Evasion mode would also be good, allowing for faster speeds and such to get away from bad situations, like an attempted carjacking, a bump and rob, etc.

Less than lethal options do exist. I actually have rubber shot for my shotgun, though I am reluctant to use it because I'm afraid it will jam up in the barrel and make the gun explode in my face. As the saying goes: no good dead goes unpunished. It is very likely that using rubber shot or the like against an intruder would leave him alive, injured and looking for a lawyer. Intruders have sued, successfully for all kinds of things, like falling through a skylight while trying to break in to tripping over children's toys and breaking a leg. A dead ones won't sue, as terrible as that sounds. I've had police tell me on the sly that if you did shoot someone in your house, make sure to kill them, otherwise they would probably sue, especially if they were permanently injured. Terrible that an honest citizen would be forced into killing someone because the bad guy could sue you for exercising your Constitutional and human right of self-defense, but there it is.

I would quite like to ban cars, but not to ban the private joruneys that cars are for. It's a question of inventing something to replace them with. Something where you enter a destination and then it follows a driving program built into the road network to get itself there, is what I fantasise of.Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

There is an old saying: you can never criticize someone about their kids or their dogs.

I don't like being around kids because of all the legal issues that can go with it. My friend, mentioned in the other post, was very good to kids over the years, then two of them were messing around with each other, got caught and blamed it on my friend to get themselves out of trouble. My friend nearly went to federal prison for the rest of his life, and his being 70 something at the time and very prim, would have been a real misery, and a very short life.

In a message dated 12/1/2008 3:25:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Cultural values are lacking in the US. It is politically incorrect now to gently comment on someone's lack of ettiquette for fear of offending them. If you invite a friend and their child over to dinner and that child says, "I don't like this. Go make something else!" and that child's mother rubs the kid's hair and tells him he's a good boy for being honest, you cannot rebuke either the child or the mother these days without the threat of a lawsuit and social ostracism. Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Gun laws vary from state to state and even by locality.

It also depends on the local police and prosecutors ... <snip> ... "

From what you posted, it appears I am correct when I wrote that

Americans aren't allowed to threaten or shoot people willy nilly

without justification and without using common sense. There are rules

by which to abide and regulations in place for those who wish to carry

firearms. Thanks for the additional information, .

Raven

[Guest guest]

" Its about cultural values and is not right or wrong. "

Cultural values are lacking in the US. It is politically incorrect

now to gently comment on someone's lack of ettiquette for fear of

offending them.

If you invite a friend and their child over to dinner and that child

says, " I don't like this. Go make something else! " and that child's

mother rubs the kid's hair and tells him he's a good boy for being

honest, you cannot rebuke either the child or the mother these days

without the threat of a lawsuit and social ostracism.

So what choice to people have? They need to protect themselves from

others who may impose themselves on them without consequence. So far,

the law agrees, although now we have elected people who seem to

disagree with even that.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>If we were to apply the same logic to

> cars, if one person deliberately rams their car into the crowd

and kills or

> injures some people, or kids, then cars should be banned.

I would quite like to ban cars, but not to ban the private joruneys

that cars are for. It's a question of inventing something to replace

them with. Something where you enter a destination and then it

follows a driving program built into the road network to get itself

there, is what I fantasise of.

>

The US Supreme Court has ruled in at

> least 2 cases that the police exist to maintain civil order, not

to protect

> citizens.

yes, the Supreme Court has often made nasty ruithless decisions.

In most jurisdictions, you have the right to shoot an intruder

> in your house, if you are threatened on your property, or to

protect your

> life or the life of another. That is as it should be in a civil

society.

Something that can only shoot to incapacitate would surely be safer

than shooting to kill, and better allow for the facts to be

established after the event. also as it should be in a civil society.

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... If you invite a friend and their child

over to dinner and that child says, " I don't like this. Go make

something else! " and that child's mother rubs the kid's hair and

tells him he's a good boy for being honest, you cannot rebuke either

the child or the mother these days without the threat of a lawsuit

and social ostracism ... <snip> ... "

My reply to such a scenario would be thus: " Since we're all being

honest, I can honestly say that I'm not prepared to be a short order

cook. I am also not prepared to start cooking an entirely new meal

when the one I have prepared is ready to eat. Honestly, the choices

are to either eat what's in front of you or eat when you get home

with your mother. "

I would be wildly unpopular but I would have been " honest " in the

same fashion my guests were " honest. "

Of course, I would NEVER invite either the child or the mother into

my home again.

Raven

[Guest guest]

good to hear that there are some controls and that people do not just use their guns out of anger.

Re: Old school media bias

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... They are just not allowed to threaten or shoot people as is permitted in the USA ... <snip> ... "

I doubt very much that Americans are 'allowed to threaten or shoot people' willy nilly without justification and without using common sense.

In fact, over the years, I remember reading in newspapers and watching on television reporting on Americans who either threatened or shot people with a gun and who were charged with a criminal offence. Even people who were only defending their property after a criminal had broken into the matrimonial home.

In other words, just because Americans are guaranteed the 'right to bear arms' does not mean that they are 'allowed to threaten or shoot people.' Even with justification, Americans are held accountable for their actions ... whether a gun is used in immaterial.

Raven

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

I would handle it differently because there are foods that I cannot insert into the mouth. I rarely eat out because of this so I sympathise with the sentiment. I dislike the lack of manners. I would say that I would be happy to make something else for someone who asks politely and I would keep on eating my meal until a courteous request was forthcoming.

Re: Old school media bias

wrote: " ... <snip> ... If you invite a friend and their child over to dinner and that child says, "I don't like this. Go make something else!" and that child's mother rubs the kid's hair and tells him he's a good boy for being honest, you cannot rebuke either the child or the mother these days without the threat of a lawsuit and social ostracism ... <snip> ... "

My reply to such a scenario would be thus: "Since we're all being honest, I can honestly say that I'm not prepared to be a short order cook. I am also not prepared to start cooking an entirely new meal when the one I have prepared is ready to eat. Honestly, the choices are to either eat what's in front of you or eat when you get home with your mother."

I would be wildly unpopular but I would have been "honest" in the same fashion my guests were "honest."

Of course, I would NEVER invite either the child or the mother into my home again.

Raven

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

" If you invite a friend and their child over to dinner and that child

says, " I don't like this. Go make something else! " and that child's

mother rubs the kid's hair and tells him he's a good boy for being

honest, you cannot rebuke either the child or the mother these days

without the threat of a lawsuit and social ostracism. "

I think I'd stop inviting people to dinner, not that I do anyways :-)

also 'social ostracism' is bad, why? ;-) I personally would find it

very hard to refrain from saying something.

I've been out with friends and their children previously and if the

children are playing up, I say something - I'd pull up my own son for

bad behaviour and would think nothing of doing the same to a friends

children. I managed to upset my friends son once just for pulling him

up on his behvaiour; I am not sure why it upset him, maybe he was not

used to people telling him to behave.

>

> " Its about cultural values and is not right or wrong. "

>

> Cultural values are lacking in the US. It is politically incorrect

> now to gently comment on someone's lack of ettiquette for fear of

> offending them.

>

> If you invite a friend and their child over to dinner and that

child

> says, " I don't like this. Go make something else! " and that child's

> mother rubs the kid's hair and tells him he's a good boy for being

> honest, you cannot rebuke either the child or the mother these days

> without the threat of a lawsuit and social ostracism.

>

> So what choice to people have? They need to protect themselves from

> others who may impose themselves on them without consequence. So

far,

> the law agrees, although now we have elected people who seem to

> disagree with even that.

>

>

> Administrator

>