Thursday, April 11, 2002

One of my mailing lists today had a good article which followed most of the objections I made originally to that horrid "TV makes one violent" study. Its not the violent content of TV that makes on violent, its the fact that people are sitting around doing nothing intellectual that makes them violent. Ignorance breeds violence, and TV certainly breeds ignorance...

Violent couch potatoes?
----------
Tech Central Station
by Iain Murray
Recent research published in Science magazine asserts that television watching in general leads to violence. But the study has not shown that TV will in itself cause your child to grow up bad. (04/10/02)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-041002E

Wednesday, April 10, 2002

Got a nice reply on the free market.net main forum...

*

: Let ask how many south vietnemese and cambodian people were slaughtered after the US pulled out? Give up, try 3 million, thats 3,000,000 people. Families, mothers, fathers, loved ones. Oh, sorry, forgot, the Khamir rouge changed everyones name in Cambodia that they didnt kill, so much for families. More people were killed in the 6 months FOLLOWING the US withdrawl than were killed in the entire confilict. Ever heard of the killing fields? How many southvietnemese took off into the south China sea after the North came in, after the US pulled out (from liberal hippy pressure, who cares if they are killing millions, there not white!) Give up, try 600,000, ever looked to see where the south China sea goes? NOWHERE!, especially in a make shift raft. How many of them drowned? Nearly All of them. So much for their love of the communist north veitnese, who, incidentally, were being funneled weapons and supplies from the soviet union. Who cares though, right? As long as you have lower taxes and can have your fancy house with a white picket fence, who cares if thousands are slaughtered at the hand cruel regime.

Matus
:
: "Oh but it wasnt constitutional" whine whine, HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED?
It's good to see someone here makes sense. When you listen to someone like Neal Boortz there is a lot to be agreed with, but on this message board it's hard to tell the difference between a libertarian and a liberal a lot of the time. Reading some of these kaffoons you would think they never got over the sixties, free venereal disease, dirty needles and boring whiny hippy rock. I bet you some of them are still walking around with long hair with flowers in it and birkenstock's, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them spit on our veterans as they were getting off the troop planes.

*

It is, indeed, good to know someone else out there makes sense...

Matus
I have been having an interesting discussion on Vietnam...

*

: : : : I get the sense when reading through his archives, this dude is not anti-war, he is just anti-.
: : :
: : : Then he must be anti-anti, which would logically make him pro.
: :
: :
: : Psychologically he could not stay pro anything for very long.
:
: Let’s hope that applies as well to those who support Bush's mad crusade. The Vietnam War also was once popular.

Indeed it should have been to any reasonable minded individual. Make Your statement of ironic sentiment to the 1 million south veintemese and 2 million cambodians who were mercilissly slaughtered by the communist regimes which took over rule after the US bowed to anti-intervention liberal 'peacefull' protestors and left the region. The 3 million people who were killed in the first 6 months following the US exit from the region would sure understand the american annoyance at haveing tax money taken away to support the intervention, that is, if the werent all DEAD.

Is a state that forces its citizens to pay taxes morally equally to one that perpetually slaughters them? Seems most libertarians ignorantly think so.

Libertarians seem live in a ignorant ideological utopia of absolute non-intervention.

Mike

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

: Let's ask how a U.S.A.F. pilot ended up in the Hanoi Hilton prison in the first place. Did the North Vietnamese kidnap him from North America and drag him across the Pacific?
:

Let ask how many south vietnemese and cambodian people were slaughtered after the US pulled out? Give up, try 3 million, thats 3,000,000 people. Families, mothers, fathers, loved ones. Oh, sorry, forgot, the Khamir rouge changed everyones name in Cambodia that they didnt kill, so much for families. More people were killed in the 6 months FOLLOWING the US withdrawl than were killed in the entire confilict. Ever heard of the killing fields? How many southvietnemese took off into the south China sea after the North came in, after the US pulled out (from liberal hippy pressure, who cares if they are killing millions, there not white!) Give up, try 600,000, ever looked to see where the south China sea goes? NOWHERE!, especially in a make shift raft. How many of them drowned? Nearly All of them. So much for their love of the communist north veitnese, who, incidentally, were being funneled weapons and supplies from the soviet union. Who cares though, right? As long as you have lower taxes and can have your fancy house with a white picket fence, who cares if thousands are slaughtered at the hand cruel regime.

"Oh but it wasnt constitutional" whine whine, HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED?

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

"If the necessity of supporting the South Vietnamese government was so obvious to "reasonable minded individuals," then American dollars and volunteers would have poured there with no prodding from Washington."

Assuming the premise that most Americans are reasonable, rational, and intelligent, Which it is quite obvious is not the case. Would you disagree with that?

For a while money did pour in from Washington, till the hippy liberal media bias completely overblew the watergate 'scandal' and effectively removed Nixon ability to run a country. Do you agree that there is a sever liberal bias? Do you agree that the media overblowing unimportant subjects can influence and persuade popular opinion? When Nixon was re-elected, over 85% of people favored troops in Vietnam. Anytime you hear now adays everybody was against the war and evil nixon was waging his own personal vendetta. Ever look and see what American Presidents forieng countries most respect for their foriegn policy? Try Nixon. Nixon was relected with the largest landslide in the US History, he lost only ONE state to Mcgovern. Some Americans are capable of rational and intelligent thought if given the chance to learn about that which they are making decisions on, unfortunately the US media tells them only one side and what to think about that side.

: Make Your statement of ironic sentiment to the 1 million south veintemese and 2 million cambodians who were mercilissly slaughtered by the communist regimes which took over rule after the US bowed to anti-intervention liberal 'peacefull' protestors and left the region. The 3 million people who were killed in the first 6 months following the US exit from the region would sure understand the american annoyance at haveing tax money taken away to support the intervention, that is, if the werent all DEAD.
:

"Where were you in the 1980s when atrocities were being committed in Mozambique and Ethiopia?"

I was 4 years old.

"Where were you in the 1990s when hundreds of thousands were being killed in Rwanda and Burundi?"

I was a freshman in high school, thanks to the US media and public education system I had never heard of Rwanda or Burundi. Where where you? Protesting US intervention and supporting absolute isolationism?

"What are you doing now to prevent genocide in the Sudan and the eastern Congo?"

Learning everything I can about global politics, history, and human pyschology and making informed decisions based on an empirically edified worldview, and doing my best to educate others about these attrocities through two mailing lists and an online magazine. What are you doing? Besides complaining about high taxes while standing over mass graves.

"What are you doing now with your strong arms and life savings except sitting at your computer and blaming others?"

Working on safe transportation, clean effecient power sources, and other technologies that rise the standard of living of each human being on the planet. Life savings? I was born in 76, at least Im trying to do something and acknolwedge these attrocities exist and that something should be done about them. Instead of sitting on my ass watching survivor and complaining about high taxes and the 'imperialist' US while thousands across the glove are mudered and starve to death.

: Is a state that forces its citizens to pay taxes morally equally to one that perpetually slaughters them? Seems most libertarians ignorantly think so.
:

"Fallacy of the false dilemma. The U.S. does not have to become a communist tyranny before one starts expressing his disagreement with it."

I never made such a mutually exclusive choice, nor was this a 'false dillema' as I never suggested one choose either or. The point is, libertarians are so obsessed with arbitrary local problems (such as not getting to keep all the money they make) while millions of people are slaughtered all year round. This does not mean in anyway that I agree with taxes or the current semi socialist democratic state, it does mean that things are not all that bad when compared to the rest of the world. ANd instead of bitching about arbitrary selfish crap like taxes lets worry about the thousand of people who die every day and try to get them up to a modest standard of living (hopefully one day their worst concern will be high taxes) then we can start worrying about taxes and privatization of schools. Which do you deem more important, keeping the money you earn or saving thousands of lives? If you could have both, im sure you would, but if you had to expend your efforts on one or the other, which would you choose (looks like we know the answer to that all ready)

"Your approach reminds me of those who defend the Brady Bill by saying that after all it's not outright gun confiscation."

How so, im not following that correlation?

: Libertarians seem live in a ignorant ideological utopia of absolute non-intervention.
:

"It must seem that way to someone who has been successfully obedience-trained by the government through its propaganda schools and lap dog news media."

Actually that is not the case, I am by all accounts a libertarian, in fact I hold discussion group and mailing on politics which is libertarian, with the sole (and very important) exception of foreign policy. In a global market place and globally interconnected society it is patently absurd to be an absolute isolationist. This is a main reason why the libertarian party also fails to gain any momentum year in and year out. Haveing a reasonable (all biet restricted) policy of foriegn intervention which make much more sense than an irrational unreasonable absolute isolationism.

Mike

Thursday, April 04, 2002

Interesting news bite in my local newspaper - Zoologists delighted with two-headed snake from - http://www.theday.com/News/ts-re.asp?NewsUID=24AD6248-D74C-4FC8-A677-8A6542DA84FF

Excerpt "the heads were so autonomous they even fought over food"

*

The Hartford Advocats readers response section has a good letter written by one of the few other, apparanetly, people concerned with the real state of the world and not the propogandized dystopian one promulgated by the political mainstream...

from - http://www.newmassmedia.com/nac.phtml?code=har&db=nac_fea&ref=19961

Alan Bisbort's comments ["Who Cares What you Think?" March 14] on foreign policy display a breathtaking level of ignorance and naivete. Leave it to some dumb-assed, guilt-ridden left winger to imagine that trashing the likes of North Korea or Iraq is "infantile" and will "alienate us from the rest of the world."

Or to claim that the Bush administration, which recently sponsored a UN resolution in favor of creating a Palestinian State, has "turned its back on the Palestinians."

Or to imagine that Bush erred in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, a bad agreement that would have required us to spend billions to solve the non-existent "crisis" of "global warming."

Or to confuse nuclear contingency, which the Defense Department must and should develop, with actual "plans for waging nuclear war against seven nations," as if we were plotting a first strike, which we absolutely do not have.

Lefties can't think about foreign policy and really ought to spare themselves the humiliation of trying.

Keith Acker
Cromwell

Thanks Keith!!!

*

Good news and Bad news (more bad than good) on the space exploration front.

from - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/planetary_exploration_020402.html

NASA budget to increase by nearly 700 million by 2007 (less than the cost of one stealth bomber, I might add) ew NASA initative to research nuclear propulsion (finally!) But Bush's new NASA budget has all Mars missions cancelled for the next DECADE (Jesus!) pending review.

*

There is a good article on Reason Mag on the 'Bias against handguns'

from - http://reason.com/cy/cy031802.shtml

"But is the link between handgun ownership and high rates of murder and suicide really that incontrovertible?

Consider, for instance, the fact that our nongun homicide rates exceed total homicide rates in many nations. In 1998, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in the United States was 6.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about two-thirds of these killings. Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people - about four times the average annual homicide rate in Japan (0.5 per 100,000) and higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2) or Sweden (1.4). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.

Consider, too, countries where guns are common and crime is rare. Switzerland boasts a heavily armed population and a thriving gun culture (shooting contests for children are a popular tradition). Yet its homicide rates are comparable to Great Britain's. Israel, where most adults are either on active military duty or in the reserves and almost every home has a weapon, also has a low murder rate, on a par with most of Western Europe.

What's more, more than half of gun deaths in this country (about 55 percent) are not homicides, but suicides. Am I saying that we needn't be concerned if people merely shoot themselves rather than shoot others? No. But in this case, blaming the guns for the deaths is especially dubious.

Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands - maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the United States, 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland. "

*

I have been considering purchasing a gun recently, mainly because I want to increase safety rates and probabilties of survival all across the board of my life. Its good to have a clear head about such important decisions.

Matus