Canadian Government to Jam Radio Signals 571
An anonymous reader submits: "According to this article, the Canadian government has given the military and RCMP permission to jam radio signals during the G8 summit and the Pope's visit. I suppose that the stated reason would be to prevent terrorists from communicating with each other, but I have to wonder whether it's also being done to keep those pesky protesters from effectively organizing at the G8. And if this action manages to block wireless 911 calls, and someone dies because of that, who's going to be willing to step up to the plate and take the blame?"
Because we all know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unilateral jamming (Score:3, Insightful)
Jamming 911 calls (Score:5, Insightful)
Our country lived without cell phones for 200 years; I think people will survive for another 12 days without them in that area. They are going to be in a populated area; landline phones will be nearby. People don't die from lack of cell phones.
Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
are 911 calls the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
He did not know, however, how the jamming would affect cell phones or commercial radio transmissions
It specifies that "every reasonable effort shall be made to confine or restrict to the extent possible interference with or obstruction of a radiocommunication . . . to the smallest physical area, the fewest number of frequencies and the minimum duration required to accomplish the objectives of the interference or obstruction."
and most interesting
Jamming devices are also illegal in the United States, but there is a growing underground market for the devices, which can be bought for about $2,200. A survey of 2,000 people last year by Decima Research found about 50 per cent support for jammers in public places.
Imagine no more cell phones going off in movie theatres.
Besides, if it's a public place, there should be a public phone nearby. It's not like these people are on a highway in the middle of nowhere.
Re:Unilateral jamming (Score:5, Insightful)
The stupidities are multiple. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. If you jam radio frequencies, you deny yourself information you might otherwise be able to use to your advantage. Not real smart.
2. This does NOTHING to block visual signalling methods, or hard-line transmission methods that do not rely on radio frequency communication.
3. Remote control explosive devices that could be set off by the intended transmission could also be set off by the jamming, which is _also_ a transmission of considerable strength on multiple frequencies. Explosive crews use those "Turn off Transmitter next X miles" signs for a reason.
4. If you only block selective frequencies, you'll probably miss blocking transmissions in other alternate bands/frequencies you didn't expect "the forces of darkness" to use.
5. The methods they intend to use are akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer.
And that's just off the top of my head!
Easy excuse... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the jamming effectively ruins some terrorists plans, and prevents a disaster and saves hundreds of lives? But I guess that we'll never know for sure.
I am personally convinced that the various intelligence agencies prevent dozens of terrorist attacks per months, some of them probably of the 9/11 magnitude, without the public realizing simply because the government wants to keep those quiet (no need to shout wolf once the threat is defused).
Re:The stupidities are multiple. (Score:1, Insightful)
Free as in Speech! (Score:5, Insightful)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution codifies the idea that the free flow of information empowers free people to do good things with that information. Pity that our neighbors to the north rejected the invitation to place themselves under its jurisdiction (and that our own government seems hell-bent on neutering the entire document).
Even worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
A major reason you don't see jammers etc. in movie theatres for a bit is some people need their phones to work. Hopefully at somepoint we'll have smart phones that can be set to ring only for doctors etc. if desperately needed. If not, only allow phones to vibrate.
What's the second piece of infrastructure to fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Vital communication would be jammed exactly when it was most needed by the very people who would need it most. Set off a bomb in a crowded mall NEAR the center of the action and the emergency services might not hear of it until somebody drove over and told them.
All of downtown New York was without land phone service for days, weeks and my old neighborhood (Battery Park City,) was affected for months after the attack on the WTC.
Cell phones were dead too because there was no power available to the repeaters but those were reestablished within hours or days with mobile power units and mobile repeaters driven in on trucks.
This is yet another example of bureaucratic thinking at its best: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I would want the badge number of the fool who thought that one up. And I would hold him/her and the judge who is allowing this stupidity so we can hold them responsible for any deaths due to the inability of the authorities to respond.
Re:Health care is not a basic human right (Score:1, Insightful)
True, in an absolute sense. Given the proper conditions a poor person can bootstrap his/her self up the class system.
What puzzles me no end about the absolute capitalist mindset is the peculiar mental avoidance of what actually happens *on the ground*. Most people do not in fact do this, and to say that their reasons for staying in a given position within the class structure are purely self-determined is just silly. People exist within a framework of social and legal interactions which can and do keep them immobile. To accept an absolute, unfettered capitalist approach is ultimately to embrace an highly stratified, rigidly class-structured society (and I'm not interested in a theoretical discussions - this is what happens *for real*). Economic power bleeds over into political power, and the interests of those already in place in the power structure are regularly put ahead of the populace.
Capitalism does not promote democracy - this is a self-congratulatory piece of propaganda from the Reagan era and before. Examples like Hong Kong, Singapore, even the emergent riches of China offer ample counterexamples to this piece of dogma (and I use the word dogma in a literal sense, as the connection between the absolute caplitalist view and a faith sensu stricto is very clear). Capitalism is nothing more than a particular method of organizing economic flow. Democracy is the organization of political power. Examples abound of democratic/socialist, dictatorial/capitalist, democractic/capitaist and dictatorial/socialist societies. Canada leans towards democratic/socialist (at least in contrast to the USA).
Anyway, as a lifelong Canadian I've never felt particularly shorted by our health care system. It is very true that in the USA I could get better treatments for some things **if I could pay for them**. This is also true for citizens of the USA. Anyone US citizen who is without health insurance (don't know the latest figure, but it is whopping) cannot even approach the Canadian level of health care. Furthermore, if I am a wealthy Canadian I can also afford US health care (as many regularly do).
So in a nutshell, the base level of health care available to Canadians regularly exceeds that available to huge numbers of US citizens. The wealthy can and do access better health care, just like in the USA.
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Canadian Government.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Canadia is not a capitalist system.
I see this "Canada is a socialism" BS on here a lot on Slashdot, and I find it fascinating. Could you tell me where I might find a "non-socialist" country? I presume you won't say the United States, as public highways, old age security, public schools, police departments, fire departments, public health, any government agency, etc, is ALL SOCIALISM (I'm in a rush and am too lazy right now, but please show me the budget amounts for the US and Canadian federal governments: I'll guess that they are largely the same per capita).
Any time people gather together for a "common good" is socialism. Life insurance is a version of socialism. Health insurance is COMPLETELY socialism (or do all Americans forsake health insurance because it's "commie socialism"? Do they say "No, when I get cancer, I'm looking forward to ponying up $527,293.23, because that's the capitalist American way!). Any time you don't directly pay for the goods and services that you receive, 100% so, it is a socialism system that is supporting it.
Re:Who really owns the airwaves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both countries have developed market economies. Both countries interfere in the markets of the country. The US is hypocritical in that it demands "free trade" for its exports, yet is very quick to put up trade barriers when producers in other countries can provide goods & services at a lower cost. Another example of the US hypocricy are the farm subsidies. If the US was truly governed by pure capitalist philosphy, the government would probably simply say to the farmers "Shut up, sell out and find a job in the city". The US regularly ignores WTO & NAFTA judgments.
Canada, on the other hand interferes in the economy by assisting individuals (more, but not much more spending on medicare (the US has medicaid, though it's not universal) and on education.) & taking a marketing role in items like commodities (Wheat Board as an example). Both countries back their corporations with tax holidays, no-interest loans and loan guarantees (Both countries bailed out Chrysler in the late 70s). Like the US, Canada ignores international trade decisions at its leisure. Canada gave loan guarantees to Bombardier for airplane exports against the As it turns out, our representatives wisely decided to opt for a capitalist system.
All western democracies have. Whether it is wise or not is debatable.
The highest bidder (that is, the bidder with the strongest desire to speak), is able to purchase spectrum at a reasonable cost from the American people. Thus, the maximum possible return is achieved for the taxpayers, and the highest bidder has paid a fair price for the scarce resource they need. Capitalism works - period.
It may be more prudent to lease the resources to the companies. If the resources are scarce, ownership should stay with everyone. Look at the havoc brought on by privatisation of electric services. For a European example, look at the UK rail system. I am crossing my fingers that the London Underground doesn't go the same way. Capitalism may work if you are privileged to begin with, but the market can also sometimes let people down with fatal results. I could also drag out the example of the post office. Without the government running or regulating the agency, many small/isolated communities would simply not be serviced if the post office were privatised.
Unfortunately, Canadia (sic) is not a capitalist society. Canadians favor socialist approaches to health care, government, and (yes) RF spectrum allocation. This means that the rights to an area of spectrum belong to the government, not to the people (as in America). And the Canadian government is now flexing their muscle and exercising their right to take this valuable resource away from its citizens, who wish to communicate amongst themselves. This underscores a crucial point of socialism: its sole purpose is to maintain control over the populace, at any cost. The basic premise of capitalism flies in the face of this sort of manipulation, and that is why America will never become a police state, regardless of what Draconian laws the Bush administration manages to pass.
Blah Blah Blah...Ask someone who is poor and/or of colour if your country is a police state. Money, and sometimes the perception of having it is what is keeping many people from being targets. Canada has the Charter of Rights, the US has the Bill of Rights, both have roughly the same level of legal protection. Arguments that in the US the government's power comes from the people and in Canada, the government grants rights and freedoms is purely one of semantics.
So, in summary: you get what you elect. If you vote for socialists, don't expect to get fair use out of the natural resources and public goods in your country. The lesson comes at a high cost for many Canadians (witness the breakdown of their health care system),
Breakdown, really? Have you been to a doctor, hospital in Canada? "Breakdown of the Healthcare system" is a term used by conservatives tojustify abandoning the system and give their wealthy supporters tax breaks. The health care system is underfunded, but okay.
but recognizing the problem is the first step in finding a solution and joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a capitalist country.
I think I have addressed this earlier. The US is no more committed to the free market than any other developed country. Though I have focussed heavily on trade & commerce, it is because that was your argument that a police state would never come from a capitalist society. Capitalism v. Social Democracy have little to do with democracy v. totalitarianism. What does this have to do with the airwaves? Well, as much as I hate to see legitimate dissent thwarted by abuse of authority, I really don't see what difference it makes whether or not we are jammed by a government agency or by a corporation. Jennifer
Re:Uh..well...gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) The jamming would be localized to the event. There'd be lots of people there. Somebody calling 911 from a Cell phone is going to make the dispatcher's job lots more difficult than somebody calling from a pay phone. Imagine trying to find somebody hurt in a sea of people.
2.) There'll be *lots* of security at a place like that, so if somebody does get hurt, calling 911 from a cell phone wouldn't be as useful as hunting down a security guard. (I'm sure that'll draw debate, I'm just trying to establish that cell phone usage during this type of event is probably not going to be that high.)
3.) Are you willing to go to a public event like that without adequate security measures? I honestly don't know how most people feel. We just had the Rose Parade here in Portland where a few military ships docked. This year, I live right by the river that these boats travel down. I'm less than a city block away from where they were docked.
I was a little nervous about spending a whole lot of time there, but the extra security made me more comfortable. Though some of my freedomes were gone (they really restricted travel around that area), I felt like there was little that could happen.
But if the security was as lax as last year, I'm not sure I'd feel so good about hanging around there.
There are those who have no fear, I do not speak for them. I'm just saying "Does the extra security make you feel more comfortable?"
To me, losing my cell phone over it at a public event like the Pope coming isn't that big of deal. That doesn't mean I'll lay down and take everything they want to do, it just sounds reasonable for the moment. I won't accept jamming at movie theaters, airports, or places that are public every single day, though.
Re:Free as in Speech! (Score:2, Insightful)
is special to you, other than "eh" and the pesky french?
Well for starters, fresh water, lots of hydro electricity, oil, natural gas, real beer, and a relitively clean atmosphere minus the polution that comes north of the border.
Re:Jamming 911 calls (Score:5, Insightful)
Before phones, EMS response to time-critical injuries and illnesses was more or less impossible. As phones became more pervasive, a victim's chance of surviving thanks to prompt intervention rose. Cell phones have continued this trend.
So yes, a jammed cell phone might well cost someone his or her life. The fact that the victim would also have died in 1970 is irrelevant.
Re:Jamming 911 calls (Score:5, Insightful)
200 years ago, no one was dependant on them. Aside from the fact that this is an incredible inconvenience, there are several other problems here. First of all, is the government going to reimburse its cell-phone carrying citizens for their lost money during the blackout period? 12 days is nearly half a month, so the folks paying $70 and $80/mo are getting screwed out of about $40 every time they decide to do this.
Next we have the woman jogging in the park who is suddenly being chased by a man. She reaches for her cell phone to dial 911, but no signal. Why? HER government, the one that is supposed to be protecting her, has decided to jam the signal. She then has no way to call for help, and if no one hears here cries for help, she might be raped and/or killed by her attacker. Seem far-fetched? Call your nearest city's police and ask how many cell-phone 911 calls they receive in a month, then ask how many of those calls probably saved a life. I doubt the woman in this example could stop at a payphone, pick up the reciver, and dial 911, then talk to the person at 911 before her attacker reached her. People don't die from lack of cell phones, but you cannot possibly argue that cell phones don't save lives that would otherwise be lost.
Just yet another example of a government doing part of its job much worse (protecting the rights of citizens) to try to make up for where it's been lacking (protecting the security of its citizens.) The destruction and terror wrought by Al Qaida pales in comparison to that caused by politicians. To save life at the expense of liberty is the same as ending poverty by killing those who are impoverished.
Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, Israel has been a case study in how less freedom, less liberty, more laws, more soldiers, more guns, more walls, and more surveillance does *NOT* make you more secure. Freedom and security go hand in hand. Laws don't make you more secure, nor do guns; freedom does. Didn't anyone else feel a sense of pride at the shouting of the phrase, "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!" ? Think about that phrase for a while.
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:2, Insightful)
Being in IT worker who works with lots of programmers and administrators, I have to say that a lot of the stereotypes about IT dorks are true. Too many of my co-workers are fat, bearded, pasty white, socially retarted, Farscape watching dorks with glasses, who have no social life, no girlfriend and if they do they're usually socially retarted as well and so forth. I guess in such a socially retarted community with yuppie aspirations (which high H1-B caps, FLSA, section 1706 and things like G8 will do much to crush), it's unsurprising to find people so cut off from society and their community to follow the same route on things such as these, and who side with the plutocrats carving up the world over the average man on the street. The only time these losers ever interact in a social manner with a working class human being is when they go down to San Francisco's Tenderloin district and pay some girl $400 to give them a hand job, since they're so socially alienated from the community, they're unable to find a romantic companion. Having to work amidst people like this, who obviously are reflexively sycophantic to the G8 plutocrats, forgive me if you make me want to puke.
Thus, it's normal that these socially retarted and alienated people, who get their news from wherever yuppies get their news, would buy into the G8 plutocrats line that anyone against them is trying to "destroy your home"? Huh, the protestors are coming to your particular house and address to burn it down? If you mean your home is Ottawa, your nomenclature is funny. You never say G8 is coming to your home, although most of the people from G8 are foreigners. Yes, it's always the protestors who are coming from somewhere else, I guess there must be some town somewhere that all these foreign agitators come from. God forbid that there are some people who live in Ottawa [indymedia.ca], Ontario, or Canada who are unhappy about this! Yes, the G8 plutocrats from the US, France, Germany etc. are your "local" people to protect, and the local community groups protesting this are the "foreign" agitators. In the corporate media, this kind of deception goes through unchallenged all the time, fortunately, at least here it can be challenged.
And wow, these protestors are "violent" before they even get to Ottawa. What foresight you must have, you can already see the future! We just had the WEF in New York City in February, thousands showed up to protest, and there were only a handful of arrests, and no cases of physical violence or property damage. The supposedly massively violent Seattle protests had a handful of kids break the windows of Starbucks and the Gap before some middle-aged union guys came over and ran them away before the cops came. The Gap sells clothes made by 9 year olds in Indonesia factories who work 12 hour days, 7 days a week, and who are often beaten at their factories. Who are the real criminals?
I see us as on the winning side. There are enough blind people like you so that the problems addressed by the protestors are ignored, and things will get worse and worse and worse and worse. Soon you will be praying for the days of relatively peaceful days of demonstrations like the upcoming G8 one will be. In a few years, when all IT work moves to India and Romania, and the remaining American workers are all H1-Bs who are treated like blue collar workers, combined with 1706, FLSA and so forth, I think we will start seeing more disgruntled IT workers coming to things like these. In fact, it is starting to happen already, you'd be surprised how many people coming to them have had their salaries drop like ComputerWorld pointed out recently (that IT industry salaries have dropped while productivity and the level of services remain, e.g. workers are giving more or the same for less), and how well they know Java and C++ and how to create stored procedures in Oracle. The protestor groups would not be able to have as much of an Internet presence as they do without the freely donated time and resources of programmers and administrators who are unhappy about how their communities are being shitted on by these G8 plutocrats, are unhappy about how their wages are being driven down while they're the ones who do the work and create the wealth that fills their shareholders and CEO's pockets, are unhappy with working 60 hour weeks, being oncall 24/7 and having their workplace trying to destroy their social life, a social life made more difficult to attain since these types of economic and social changes have been destroying the social life of communities which existed decades ago. These sycophantic dorks are not people, they are people without a social life, they are robots attached to machines and bureaucracies who have no desire for a social life and social interactions. It's almost like a science fiction tale where networks of robots and computers are battling the humans who have not been devastated by this cold, impersonal network, with about as much charm as a data center at 4 in the morning. I'll cast my lot with the human communities instead of these bureaucracies that are trying to turn humans into robots, even if we lose in the end, they're a much more fun group to hang out with then dorks whose fun idea of a Saturday night is -
Watching a MST3K marathon with other dorks
Perusing the SF Red Book for which prostitute they will have a so-called date with tonight
Shopping at Fry's for a graphics card because they have a Quake tournament to play at that night
and of course we can't forget
Spending Saturday night at the office working!
No thanks...I spend enough time working and being around these people to keep a roof over my head. I don't need it to BE my life.
Re:B.A. in Basketweaving (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
All this will do is annoy law abiding citizens who want to use their own phones.
Anyone with "an agenda" is already making other plans to deal with the problem since it was so conveniantly announced in the press.
Typical Canadian government - goose-stepping all over Canadian rights. Somehow I know that Jean Poutine is behind all of it
It's a police-state in the making...
easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
cancel the summit and hold it via wireless video conferencing
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, that is capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want public roads, and I want them all to be toll roads (even my little side street). Can I have it? No? Oh right, it's against the common good. I want my kids to go to private school and I want public school abolished. Can I have it? No, of course I can't: It's against the common good. I don't want to pay TAXES, because what do I care if there's a military, or a fire fighting crew, or police : I live in a bunker and am a trained marksman, so why should I support the silly helpless victims out there? I could go on with examples of "socialism" in the mighty capitalist US of A, but I wouldn't want to upset any of the Slashdot freedom fighters who are so willing to brand Canada and Europe as "socialist" without looking in their own backgrounds, or understanding what they're really talking about.
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been to nice, peaceful protests, and they are a joke. You get a permit to stand in some park cut off from anyone and the only way you inconvenience the system is that they have to pay extra for all the police they get to cordon you off. It's a big waste of time. But it's peaceful and doesn't get in anyone's way.
In my experience the protesters usually do not start the violence. But the protesters are confrontational. You must be confrontational in some way if you want to have a real protest -- that's what it means to have a protest. Otherwise it's just a parade. Civil rights protesters did not ask the government for a permit to do a sit in. Gandhi did not cooperate with the police. The protesters in these cases may have been nonviolent, but the protests themselves were often very violent.
I know you would rather people not protest -- if it's a real protest it will likely disrupt your life. But stop being a fucking whiner! These issues are bigger than your fucking day to day life. These issues are more important than a few windows that might get broken in the chaos. This is what protest looks like, and either say you are against protest altogether, or accept that it has to come to your town eventually.
I'm sorry if I'm attacking you, but at a certain point it really pisses me off when people are so petty. This isn't a soccer match, the protests are about real things. And these protests have meant something -- for one, it's meant that the leaders of the 8 most important countries are having a clandestine meeting in the wilderness. That doesn't happen because of a letter-writing campaign.
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bigger than my everyday life so you can screw it up ? How nice! But who are you to decide that your protest is more important than my life anyway ?
About the "broken windows", there were far more destruction in Genoa (Italy): banks were burnt, shops, cars burnt too... Many people in Genoa couldn't just believe what Black Block and other so-called "protesters" did to their city.
In fact, the "protesters" are apprentice terrorists: they adopt the very same methods: blow up things, destroy, spread fear of their arrival... In France, a bomb blew up a macdonald's, and an employee was killed. After this "incident", no more bombing. But i'm pretty sure that this wont stop other people to do it in other countries.
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:4, Insightful)
You're telling the poster that he should stop whining about millions of dollars in property damage because people need to be heard? I'm sorry, you don't need to smash storefront windows to be heard. You don't need to attack police to be heard. You don't need to start riots to be heard.
Get a clue. Democracy is by election. What you're supporting is vigilante democracy. What you're supporting is business getting destroyed because people have no sense of responsibility. There is no excuse whatsoever for the kind of garbage that happens at these meetings and summits and so on.
Yes, the leaders of 8 countries are meeting in the wilderness. And it's not happening because of a letter writing campaign. It's happening because people use violent means towards political ends.
If protest means I'm afraid to leave my house, if protest means my favourite stores are closed half the month, if protest means damage and destruction, fires, looting, and hundreds of people hospitalized because some jerks feel like they have the right, then no, I don't support protesting. But that's not protesting, that's vandalism and mob rule, and I don't support that at all.
--Dan
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:4, Insightful)
I grew up in the Sixties. Protest is as much a part of my upbringing as The Beverly Hillbillies and bad rock & roll. But when I think of the protests that meant anything, I think more of the people like Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, Phil Ochs, Bob Dylan, the Smothers Brothers and all those who wrote songs people would listen to that got the message across. I think of the anonymous individuals teaching others just how bad an idea the war was. I think of the ubiquitous posters saying things like "It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." None of those get in anybody's face but the cumulative effect was to sway public opinion enough to where the government had no choice but to withdraw from Vietnam.
In my mind if you're going to change people's minds about an issue, trying to do it through smashing things doesn't work ("You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar"). The WTO protesters in Seattle, in my mind, did NOT succeed in their mission, unless their mission was to drive WTO and G8 and similar meetings undergrond to places like the United Arab Emirates and the Canadian wilderness, and to have their legacy from Seattle be "those anarchists who just busted a lot of windows and looted some stores." rather than "the people who got me started thinking what a bad idea globalization is."
Re:Comments From the Front Lines: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jamming 911 calls (Score:3, Insightful)
There is almost no other purpose for government. Government is meant to protect you from all dangers, both foreign to your land and domestic. A government is supposed to protect its people from any and all dangers, including but not limited to: invasion by a foreign force, destruction at the hands of a foreign force, natural desasters (by predicting as best as possible, and more importantly, responding with proper manpower and tools to ensure casualties remain as low as possible), from crime (with police forces), and many other things of this nature. Aside from that, the implementation of public policy covers just about every other job of the government. This is commonly called the "will of the people."
"There have been supreme court decisions that say the police are not required to PROTECT ANYONE"
List them. The very idea the police are not required to protect people is absolutely absurd. This is the very reason police forces exist in a society; to ensure the law is not broken, and to investigate when it is broken with the hope of bringing offenders to justice. Look on just about any police car, you will see the phrase "to protect and serve." In any event, list these supposed 'cases', as I cannot possibly see where they would exist. Personally, I look at Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Dickerson v. United States which both show police requirements to protect rights of citizens. I'm sure there are many other cases to illustrate my point, but these were the two that came to mind.
"They say you're supposed to let the Police/Gov't protect you and that there's no reason to own a gun, yet the police have no obligation to protect you! They're there to solve crimes after the fact, as in AFTER YOU'RE DEAD."
I never said this, in fact I said the opposite. Here, let me quote myself: "That being said, I'd fully support her right to keep a handgun with her, consealed or otherwise, as I believe it's her Constitutional right. (Assuming she's in the USA)." If it's the job of the police only to solve crimes that have already been commited, then why do we have vice squad, sting opperations, undercover officers, etc? If it's only the job of the police to solve crimes, why do cops stop to help people change tires, or call for help if they're having mechanical problems? If their only job is to solve crimes that have already been commited, then why to we have police patrols? If your only job is to solve crimes that have already happened, then all you need to do is sit in the office and wait for the crime reports to come in. But if your job is to stop crimes in progress then you need patrols on the streets so they're close by when someone's in trouble. And here's another one for you, why aren't they called the SBI (state), or the CBI (county) as that would fit more with the FBI. If they're just for investigation, why aren't they called investigators? Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the word "police": supervise the operation, execution, or administration of to prevent or detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations. To prevent or detect; gee, sounds like sopping crimes in progress to me.
"i>If it weren't for the gun controllers and their ilk, the said above mentioned woman would be able to take her safety into her own hands by carrying a gun she spent the time receiving training to wield properly."
She can buy a gun (after a 5 day waiting period while a background check is done on her, and she can get all the training she wants. Who's stopping her? There's no law that says she cannot be trained to use a firearm. Secondly, assuming she keeps the gun in her purse, what happens if her attacker surprises her and grabs her purse away from her? Certainly the same can be said about a cell phone, but if the attacker gets her cell phone, he can't use it to shoot her.
"So yes it's annoying that cell frequencies will be jammed, but the responsibility to protect a person lies solely on themselves."
I'd love to see what you'd do if a large group of kids with knives and guns were walking steadily towards you and you had no way to get away. I should think you'd be calling for help as you ran away as well, unless, of course, you think you can kill say 20 people before they kill you. Better yet, imagine 20 cops are standing off to the side watching the whole thing. Would you call to them for help? Imagine them getting back in their cars and answering your cries for help with, "not my job, pal, I just investigate crimes. Call me when you're dead." If this is the society you like, then you need to try another country. What you describe is known as 'anarchy'.
"Great social ideas like "it takes a village to raise a child" (bullshit, it takes loving parents) are the product of our increasingly socialist society."
The idea that it takes a village to raise a child was first conceived in central and southern Africa. I doubt you've checked, but there's no socialism in those areas. There is, however, alot of anarchy and military dictatorships; two things that seem to be appealing to you. Or perhaps you simply fancy yourself a 'cowboy', and long for the period of time shortly after the civil war, mid-west America - often called the 'wild west'. I'm sorry to have to inform you that such a place didn't really exist, and the fantastic stories of the time are no more commonplace than the stories we hear in our modern times. I imagine that in 100 years or so, many people will look back on this time and see things like the LA riots, Sept 11, and other incredible events, and think that's how we actually lived our day-to-day lives. There was never a time where the world was a big 'OK Corale', so there's no need to long for that time's return. I happen to think that our founding fathers would be quite pleased with where we are right now, and I only hope that we, as a society, can come to realize the fact that our freedom is our greatest asset in the war on terrorism, and that it's also the most delicate aspect of our society. Preservation of our freedom is paramount to our survival as a nation.
"Noone teaches the virtue of personal responibility anymore. Why should I bother taking an interest in anyone or anything if no part of life is my responsibility?"
Well, according to you, it's no one's responsibility to look out for one another, even those who are paid to do so (police). Why should you bother? That depends on your view of this country. Those who are unhappy and sit idly by while things get worse are either too lazy to do anything about it, or have given up all hope. Those who stand up for what they believe in, those who bitch and complain constantly to all who will listen and many who won't, and those who fight at every turn to preserve that which they believe is right do so for one reason and one reasonly only - they have faith that their country still has the ability to change, and can still be everything they'd like it to be. I am one of those people. Your life is as much your responsibility as you make it. That you choose to refuse to take responsibility under the guise that society has said you need not take it is nothing more than a 'cop out'.
"Noone teaches the virtue of personal responibility anymore. "
Then be different. If you believe what you say, then you need to take it upon yourself to teach responsibility to anyone you can, especially your children. Teach them to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and you'll have done your part. In any event, if you believe that helping one another to the fullest extent possible is wrong, then you really ought to go live out in the woods. I, for one, believe that all men and women should help one another as much as they possibly can, and I think that if we made it to the point where everyone did as much as possible for each other, we'd all live much fuller, happier lives. A completely isolated person might find that he is content, but he will never find the absolute joy one finds from improving the life of another.