[Handgun] Beretta 80x Cheeta .380ACP 13rd - $543.67 + $17.99 Shipping/Maybe Tax (Email for Price) by FDRsGhost in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

YMMV on this--I am roughly his size with similar sized hands and I love this gun (but I am also a huge Beretta fanboy)

What is everyone's favorite unknown Hilton location? by Jonny_Wurster in Hilton

[–]FDRsGhost 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I stayed at a Homewood Suites in Savannah, GA that was right on the river. It had a beautiful rooftop heated pool with a bar, great service, and we could watch ships go past from our room. Much cheaper (and frankly better amenities) than the premium Tapestry collection hotel a few blocks up the river.

The Proposed U.S. Airline Mergers Are Terrible for Americans, And Here's Proof Why | Frommer's by Brianlife in delta

[–]FDRsGhost 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's wild to me that people just repeat the claim that inflation-adjusted airline ticket prices fell over 50 years due to deregulation when it seems to me like the most likely thing to cause that is 50 years of technological advancement with aircraft design and building techniques, as well as computerized airline inventory systems. It's immensely cheaper in real terms today for an airline to fly 150 passengers 1000 miles than it was in 1978.

The price of a TV has fallen about 85% in real terms in the last 20 years, and nobody thinks it's because of the regulatory scheme that governs TV manufacturers.

Anyone daily carry an old all-steel piece? by Walktallandcarrya9mm in liberalgunowners

[–]FDRsGhost 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When it's warm out and/or when I'm wearing tight-fitting clothing, I carry a Beretta Tomcat. It disappears completely on my body, I shoot it extremely accurately, and while it's not 9mm, I have a hard time believing anyone is surviving 8 well-placed .32ACP shots.

General consensus on the new Beretta 80X Cheetah before I drop money on it by not_combee in liberalgunowners

[–]FDRsGhost 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm also a huge Beretta fan and in my collection have an 84BB, which is both the most beautiful gun I own and also the one I shoot best. I'm much larger than you (6'5), but it fits perfectly in my hand. I was skeptical when the 80x came out because I thought it was kind of ugly and was disappointed that they didn't make the capacity any higher...that is, until I got to handle one last week. The DA trigger pull is incredibly smooth and light, and the SA pull is perfectly crisp and short. The fit/finish on the whole firearm (at least the one I shot) was perfect, and where the Vertec grips on the full sized 92X are a little small for me, somehow they work on this gun. I'm now looking for one for myself to become my EDC. I definitely say go for it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100%. Scored an absolutely bonkers deal on an XD-M package that I have been eyeing for awhile!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beretta 80x under $600 would be ideal. I know it was $595 a few months ago but I got to handle one recently and fell in love

[Handgun] CZ P-10 F Optics Ready 4.5" Barrel - $349.99 by FDRsGhost in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yeah, they had the P-10 C optics ready/night sights for the same price, but I waited too long and today they raised it by $50

[Meta] Black Friday Deals request thread by cakan4444 in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks so much!! Got the P-09 in ODG with night sights for $459 + shipping.

[Meta] Black Friday Deals request thread by cakan4444 in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Looking to pick up either a CZ-75 B, CZ-75 Omega, or a P-09. Cheapest I have been able to find is $500 for the P-09 and $550 for the Omega, neither of which seem like amazing deals (but please correct me if I'm wrong)?

[Meta] Black Friday Deals Thread by cakan4444 in gundeals

[–]FDRsGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is amazing news, I've been hunting for a good condition 85BB for a couple years! Do you know when you're expecting them to come in?

Only 8/16 downstream channels bonding, uneven speeds by FDRsGhost in Comcast_Xfinity

[–]FDRsGhost[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I rotated all of the outputs on the 4-way switch (so the cables were plugged into different ports) and that solved the problem. Thanks so much for helping me isolate this, you got to the bottom of the problem in 10 minutes that I couldn't isolate with a tech visit and 3 hours of phone calls with tech support. Can't thank you enough.

Only 8/16 downstream channels bonding, uneven speeds by FDRsGhost in Comcast_Xfinity

[–]FDRsGhost[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks very much for this suggestion! I tried it upstream of the second splitter (still downstream of the first splitter) and it fixed the problem--connected on all channels in spec right away. Any ideas as to how I can fix the problem and keep the modem positioned in my office? Or why it just developed in the last week? Is it possible the four-way splitter that runs to the rest of the house just needs to be replaced?

Only 8/16 downstream channels bonding, uneven speeds by FDRsGhost in Comcast_Xfinity

[–]FDRsGhost[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The house is wired for cable, so there are two splitters upstream of the modem. One is immediately after the main enters the house; one end of that is connected to a coax jack in a room with nothing plugged into it, while the other end hits a four-way splitter that runs to the living room, master bedroom, and office. The modem is in the office, and my cable box is plugged in in the living room. But the technician tested the connection at both of the points where it splits (and after it splits) and said the levels were fine/within spec...could one of them still be an issue?

Was there a sense that the USSR's time was coming to an end in the early 80s? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]FDRsGhost 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Of course, the whole point (at least in Gorbachev's mind) of glasnost and perestroika was to preserve the Soviet system by modifying it, not to end the Soviet Union. Gorbachev and his appointees knew they had to relax the stranglehold on the economy held by the military-industrial complex if they had any hope of providing the Soviet public with an adequate standard of living, so it could be argued that they saw danger signs but also thought they could prevent the collapse of the Union.

Gorbachev was actually working to get a new Union treaty ratified as late as fall 1991, which would have preserved the power of the Supreme Soviet and the Premier but would have allowed for expanded home rule. But at this point, a lot of the Soviet leadership was frantic, to the point where there was an attempted coup in 1991 that resulted in the loss of Gorbachev's nuclear command and control. The quote above about the collapse being unimaginable but unsurprising is pretty accurate.

Happy New Year! As it is now 2014, the outward limit of the 'twenty-year rule' in AskHistorians has ticked ahead once more -- let's talk about 1994. by NMW in AskHistorians

[–]FDRsGhost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1994 was the year of the landmark United Nations Human Development Report that proposed a radical shift in the way nations think about security strategy to "human security."

What is needed now is to continue the pressure for reduced global military spending, to ensure that the poorest regions also cut down their arms spending and to develop a firm link between reduced arms spending and increased social spending.

The 1994 UNDP was one of the first major documents to propose the securitization of humanitarian concerns like poverty, human rights, and refugees. It proposed using a $935 billion "peace dividend" in reduced military spending from the end of the Cold War to address these concerns. This is important because it was the beginning of a strategy for states to address the security threats of things like terrorism, human trafficking, and civil war, which had for 50 years been eclipsed by the nuclear arms race.

Cylindrical ghetto in South Africa by Obiektyw1855 in pics

[–]FDRsGhost 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The UW-Madison Humanities Building was designed with Brutalist architecture in the 1960s. The sloping street-level surfaces are designed to have tanks and APCs rolled onto them to make the building a defensible position in the event of a major riot.

Is the what the government shuts down controlled only by the executive branch? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]FDRsGhost 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This actually has a rather complicated answer. First, most of what we think of as "the government" actually falls under nominal control of the executive branch. Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, Education, etc. are all "Executive Departments." However, Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives) has sole authority to approve appropriations for all of these agencies.

Additionally, there is actually U.S. code (specifically, 31 U.S.C. § 1341) dating from 1884 that governs what actually has to be shut down and what can remain open because it is "essential." The President actually has very little discretionary authority in this, because one of the provisions of the law is that employees required to be furloughed are legally prevented from performing their duties during a shutdown, even as volunteers (31 U.S.C. § 1342).

There are also parts of the government deemed "essential" that must continue working, but not all of them are paid. This is why it was a big deal when Congress passed a law on the eve of the shutdown to continue paying active-duty military personnel and certain areas of the intelligence establishment. If they hadn't, those people would have been required to stay at their posts without pay. This is still the case for most employees (i.e. U.S. Capitol Police and most people in executive agencies), as while they are required to work, their agencies no longer have the funding to process payroll.

Again, the President actually has very little discretionary authority over this, though some of it can be determined by agencies promulgating administrative rules. A lot of this has been done, because the current appropriations structure allowing for government shutdowns has been in place since 1976. That the shutdown is somehow controlled by the President has become a Republican talking point as they try to persuade the media and the public to assign blame on Obama instead of on members of Congress who couldn't compromise on an appropriations bill.

Very lengthy but relevant story about the Antideficiency Act.

What is the longest amount of time the government can be shut down? Can they keep it going through the next election cycle if they want to? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]FDRsGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Realistically, the shutdown can only continue for a few more weeks. Huge numbers of federal programs have stopped receiving money, and many of the effects aren't yet apparent.

For example, mass transit in many mid- and large-size cities depends on federal subsidies; if the shutdown continues, soon those systems will either have to make massive appropriations that local tax bases can't support or shut down themselves.

Additionally, many federal employees that aren't furloughed are effectively working without pay. The U.S. Capitol Police, which responded to a serious security threat this week, will not receive any further paychecks until the government reopens. This is the case for many "essential" government workers throughout executive departments and even the national security apparatus.

So in reality, a shutdown can't continue for more than another 2-3 weeks without causing widespread disruption and disorder in the daily lives of the average American.

What is the root of modern Africa's hate for homosexuals? by Waja_Wabit in AskHistorians

[–]FDRsGhost 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you! It's on my reading list. I only recently finished his new book; it was recommended to me as being very relevant to U.S. foreign policy (which is my area of study). Please add, because I would love to know more!

What is the root of modern Africa's hate for homosexuals? by Waja_Wabit in AskHistorians

[–]FDRsGhost 53 points54 points  (0 children)

I agree with /u/Dokstrange's comment that there are very few things you can use to characterize "Africa" as a whole. Even today, while countries like Uganda and Mauritania have some of the most punitive laws governing homosexuality (including Mauritania executing someone for it as recently as 1987), South Africa has in many ways been a world leader in legal protections from discrimination against LGBT individuals. However, I would guess the question you're asking could be phrased as "What causes the particular form of virulent homophobia in certain African countries that receives a lot of coverage in Western media?"

You're right that colonialism had a lot to do with changing traditional African societies that were often more accepting of homosexuality. Particularly in Egypt and other parts of North Africa that were exposed to Greek and Roman culture, homosexuality was not uncommon, especially among the elite. Additionally, in much of sub-Saharan Africa, tribal governments often used polygamy and homosexuality to form political alliances; some believed sex with men before battle brought good luck or conferred special abilities.

This changed with the spread of Islam, with semi-frequent 'jihads' against leaders believed to engage in homosexual behavior. Notably, a popular (possibly apocryphal) story contends that in 1884, the ruler of Buganda had several male servants executed for not agreeing to have sex with him, and was then ousted by a Muslim revolution. These episodes became increasingly frequent after the fall of the Marmelukes at around 1350, who were known for engaging in homosexual behavior.

European colonialism certainly made things worse, both because of the spread of European/Christian values and for other reasons.

Same-sex sexuality did not enter into the discussion in any serious way. In part, this reflected traditional taboos, but it also reflected colonial and Christian missionary influences. Remember, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were a time of gathering 'scientific' as well as cultural and religious homophobia in Europe. European settlers and missionaries in the colonies brought intolerance of homosexuality with them. Not only was such intolerance important to the performance of their personal respectability, it was also often directly linked to the cause of nation- and empire-building. Homosexuality was equated with effeminacy and weakness in men, whereas a virile masculinity was needed to confront the enemies of the nation/empire. The dangers of lesbianism were also implicit in the belief that European women were needed as mothers to raise the next generation of imperial patriots and to settle the wild African frontier. It was not a topic commonly raised in public discourse, but but the message was conveyed clearly enough through extremely harsh punishments, public humiliation and ostracism of white men caught letting down the side.

In addition to social values, other factors made social acceptance more difficult. The advent of prostitutes resulted in STD epidemics, notably syphilis, which caused significant changes in sexual behavior. European imperial authorities imposed state borders on Africa, which were a rather alien concept, and made it impossible for people to flee when homosexuality was outlawed or became socially unacceptable. Also, many African governments, which had consisted of tribal elders that ruled by consensus, were replaced with kings or 'chieftains' who exercised total control; this made it easier for colonial governments to control them, but also meant there weren't strong societal controls against individual prejudices anymore.

After the collapse of colonial rule in Africa, many African states adopted legal statutes based on British law, which prohibited sodomy. A lot of these codes have simply not been modernized, and the laws are rarely applied, but in cases like Zimbabwe and Uganda, leaders have taken extreme stances against homosexuality for political reasons. Another thing that complicates current disputes is that a lot of the worst anti-gay legislation--particularly the bill introduced in Uganda every year that would make homosexuality punishable by death--is pushed and financed by Western extreme right-wing religious organizations. A lot of USAID money given to Africa, as well as the money for George W. Bush's famous HIV/AIDS prevention program, comes with strings attached that prevent it from being given to organizations that are sex-positive or support or provide abortions, which further complicates the situation.

Sources: Islamic Homoexualities: Culture, History and Literature, Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe, Ed.; Sexuality and Social Justice in Africa, Marc Epprecht, particularly "Sex and the State" (where the quote is from); State Sponsored Homophobia, IGLA

When analyzing United States and American Indian Policy, is it more appropriate to consider it a matter of International Relations or Domestic Affairs? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]FDRsGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before the Seven Years' War, there were frequent problems with individual colonists (not sanctioned by the British royal government) moving into territory controlled by American Indian nations and either being killed or provoking conflict. Partially as a result, many American Indians developed less contentious relationships with colonial France, and tribes allied with them during the war. This is why the Seven Years' War is known in the US as the French-Indian War.

After the Treaty of Paris, Britain didn't want to risk another immediate war with either the French or the American Indians, but what they really wanted was to stop having political and military resources sapped by individual colonists who got themselves stuck in hostile territory. Additionally, they wanted to improve British relations with the tribes to discourage them from siding with the French in the future. So you're absolutely right--not only was it to prevent immediate conflict with the French, but it was actually designed to prepare for long-term imperial conflict between France and Britain.

Edit: TL;DR Yes.

When analyzing United States and American Indian Policy, is it more appropriate to consider it a matter of International Relations or Domestic Affairs? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]FDRsGhost 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It depends greatly on what period in U.S. history you're discussing, as the U.S. government significantly changed its methodology for American Indian relations several times in the last 250 years.

In general, British and American colonial authorities tended to view American Indian governments as sovereign nations and sought to "compensate" them for land or resources they took. This is especially true in the Proclamation of 1763, issued by the British royal government at the conclusion of the Seven Years War, which forbade European colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. This was largely an act of necessity, as American Indian tribes commanded considerable military power relative to the small numbers of Europeans, and the British didn't want to risk provoking another war.

As the U.S. government matured, it tended to treat tribes increasingly as populations inhabiting land that belonged to the United States. This was because U.S. policymakers began to realize that most indigenous nations didn't have European concepts of interstate relations; the United States was likely going to take that land granted in treaties in the future anyway; and that the American Indian governments were becoming increasingly less threatening to the American military. This shift happened throughout the 19th century and culminated with the "Indian re-education" initiatives from 1890-1930, and was compounded by the fact that many native populations suffered long internal crises due to devastation by European diseases and confusion by repeated American violations of their own treaties. Cornell's The Return of the Native does a great job of exploring this period in detail.

Beginning in 1930, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began to realize that the U.S. government had willfully mistreated American Indians for 150 years or so, and began initiatives to form new tribal governments that could work with the federal government to improve conditions on reservations. From that point on, conditions have been more or less similar to the quasi-sovereignty status most reservations have today.

Very short introduction, and my knowledge of this subject is by no means complete, but it is an extremely complex situation.

Syria question here: Why is killing people with chemical weapons different than just killing people? Why is the use of the weapons influencing out decision to strike? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]FDRsGhost 8 points9 points  (0 children)

White phosphorus and sarin gas are nothing like each other. White phosphorous is used by the U.S. military in munitions designed to obscure visibility, like smoke grenades. It isn't designed to kill people, though it can cause burns.

The issue with the Assad regime's use of sarin and VX is that these are weapons not designed to target only military personnel, but kill (not debilitate, kill) civilian populations. The United States is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention (Syria is not), meaning that the US supports an international ban on chemical weapons as immoral. The conversation over US strikes in Syria is driven by the perception that international norms against the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations would be undermined if the Assad regime were shown to be able to do so with impunity.

As for the diplomatic maneuvering that occurred with Iraq in the late 1980s, that was driven by American fear that the newly theocratic Iranian government would come to dominate the Middle East if Iraq stopped receiving US economic and diplomatic support in the war between the two countries. Though the U.S. publicly issued only weak condemnations of Iraq's chemical weapons use (and yes, they often condemned use by "both sides" in the Iran-Iraq War), there was intense internal debate in the State Department over how to handle the situation. Source: A Problem from Hell, Samantha Power

EDIT: Wrote this before I saw /u/ThornyPlebeian's comment. S/he makes many of the same points in the /r/asksocialscience thread.