>BN wrote:
>>matus wrote:
>>
>>> I would genuinely be interested to know how
>>> they determined the incarceration rate in other not so open
>>societies,
>>> like communist ones, or tyranical dictator ones, or oppresive
>>> theocracies. E.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea,
>China, Cuba,
>>> Iraq, Iran, etc.
>>
>>A quick Google finds,
>>
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html
>>
>>And here's the report with the 5.6 million figure,
>>
>>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/piusp01.htm
>>
>>Oddly enough, while it has all the data from the body of the CSM
>>article, it doesn't appear to have anything to say about US
>>incarceration rates compared to the rest of the world.
>
>I don't see why that is odd, it's the *US* department of
>Justice, not the World Department of justice. They put the
>information together, its up to others to compare it. Which
>is exactly what CS Monitor and the 'home office' does, or at
>least superficially did. Interestingly...
>
>>
>>Google suggests that a common citation for statistics on world
>>incarceration rates is the Home Office's World Prison Population List,
>>
>>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf
>>
>>In which the USA takes the top spot.
>>
>
>Interesting that on page 4, at the bottom, it says
>
>"No information on; Iraq, Afghanastan, Bhutan, Laos, East
>Timor, and North Korea"
>
>And at the end of the paper
>
>"The list has a number of weaknesses. Its lacks information
>on 17 independent countries"
>
>So, in other words, the US has the highest prison population
>in the world, not counting the notoriously worst countries in
>the world, which wont bother telling anyone what their prison
>population is. Not surprisingly, this is not mentioned once
>in the CS Monitor article.
>
>In doing some googling trying to find info on where some of
>the countries that were listed came from, for example vietnam,
>I came across this
>
>http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/G/GENERAL/GENERAL293N.PDF
>
>"But the fact remained that violations of political and civil
>rights, for the most part, were most severe in the countries
>where domestic NGOs were not allowed to operate: China,
>Vietnam, Burma, Bhutan, Brunei and North Korea. Elsewhere,
>there were areas which were also effectively closed to
>domestic and international human rights investigators,
>including East Timor and parts of Irian Jaya, Tibet, and Khmer
>Rouge-held zones of Cambodia."
>
>So where did the prison population figure for Vietnam come
>from, did they just ask the "Peoples Democratic Republic of
>Vietnam" for a figure, and were provided the figure of 77 in
>100,000! But who cares about accuracy, as long as it makes
>the US look bad, right?
>
>Of China, it says
>
>"Wu Shishen, an editor in the domestic news department of
>Xinhua was sentenced to life in prison for selling a Hongkong
>reporter an advance copy of a speech by Party Secretary Jiang Zemin."
>
>"The Chinese government continued to arrest, detain and
>torture peaceful critics and to interfere with freedom of
>expression, association, assembly and religion. Releases of
>dissidents were carefully timed for political impact, as
>exemplified by the release days before the Olympic decision in
>September of writer and editor Wei Jingsheng after over
>fourteen years of solitary confinement."
>
>Etc. etc. The stories go on and on, for vietnam, laos, Burma...
>
>One wonders where they got the figures for Chinese
>imprisonment as well.
>
>
>Michael Dickey
>
student of philosophy, science, skepticism, politics. Libertarian*, Physicist, Inventor, Eudaimonist, Extropian www.matus1976.com
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
[Continuing in that same thread]
> We agree that: Communists are awful. Terrorists are awful.
> Saddam was awful.
Well, let me be the first to welcome you to our minority viewpoint. Glad you can admit it. But don't say 'we agree' unless you mean merely you and I, because other members of this list obviously do not agree with that statement. Because members of this list have argued in favor of anarcho socialism, that the 'good guys' won in indochina, that Kuwait wasn't a legit country because Saddam didn't recognize it, etc. etc. I will continue to repeat that communists, terrorists, and saddam are awful and present evidence supporting that statement until I no longer see such odd statements on this mailing list, or until I come across convincing evidence suggesting the none of those things are awful.
I know my anti-communists and terrorists articles are quite distracting to your 'land of lets only talk about whats wrong with the US' possible vision of this mailing list, but I'm sure recent developments in this list will help to bring about such a vision.
> It's also awful that other things in parts of the world where
> we have a direct influence are awful.
Indeed, it is. At least in the US, though, the things that will get you tossed in jail are pretty well established, documented, and supported by the majority. All one need to is not steal, assault, kill, or deal drugs.
And as far as influence, as an American my vote obviously was able to directly influence the continuation of a murderous tyrannical regime. But this begs the question, is there anything we truly do not have *any* influence on?
>
> >Any link D?
>
> Sorry, that CSM piece was sent to me by someone else, and I
> didn't wish to repost the whole thing in breach of copyright.
>
I wasn't asking for the whole article to be reproduced violating
copyright, I would have liked to seen a link to the article to read more
about the study. I would genuinely be interested to know how they
determined the incarceration rate in other not so open societies, like
communist ones, or tyranical dictator ones, or oppresive theocracies.
E.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc.
etc.
Michael Dickey
> We agree that: Communists are awful. Terrorists are awful.
> Saddam was awful.
Well, let me be the first to welcome you to our minority viewpoint. Glad you can admit it. But don't say 'we agree' unless you mean merely you and I, because other members of this list obviously do not agree with that statement. Because members of this list have argued in favor of anarcho socialism, that the 'good guys' won in indochina, that Kuwait wasn't a legit country because Saddam didn't recognize it, etc. etc. I will continue to repeat that communists, terrorists, and saddam are awful and present evidence supporting that statement until I no longer see such odd statements on this mailing list, or until I come across convincing evidence suggesting the none of those things are awful.
I know my anti-communists and terrorists articles are quite distracting to your 'land of lets only talk about whats wrong with the US' possible vision of this mailing list, but I'm sure recent developments in this list will help to bring about such a vision.
> It's also awful that other things in parts of the world where
> we have a direct influence are awful.
Indeed, it is. At least in the US, though, the things that will get you tossed in jail are pretty well established, documented, and supported by the majority. All one need to is not steal, assault, kill, or deal drugs.
And as far as influence, as an American my vote obviously was able to directly influence the continuation of a murderous tyrannical regime. But this begs the question, is there anything we truly do not have *any* influence on?
>
> >Any link D?
>
> Sorry, that CSM piece was sent to me by someone else, and I
> didn't wish to repost the whole thing in breach of copyright.
>
I wasn't asking for the whole article to be reproduced violating
copyright, I would have liked to seen a link to the article to read more
about the study. I would genuinely be interested to know how they
determined the incarceration rate in other not so open societies, like
communist ones, or tyranical dictator ones, or oppresive theocracies.
E.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc.
etc.
Michael Dickey
[A post made to the extropy list]
Uh-oh.
IRAQ Has World's Highest Government Sanctioned Mass Murder Rate
By Concerned humanist
Staff writer of The Humanist Science World Monitor
Excerpt
"More than 300,000 Iraqis are buried in mass graves, according to a new report by the Justice for the world Department released Sunday. With a population of 24 million, that's 1 in 80 people who end up in an unmarked mass grave, the highest government sanctioned mass murder rate in the world. If the current trends had continued, then over the life of the Hussien regime it is likely another 300,000 people would have ended up in these mass graves. The average Kurd had a 1 in 20 chance of ending up on the death end of an IRAQ Government action, while the average Shi-ite had a 1 in 10 chance of ending up murdered."
> Uh-oh.
>
> US Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate
>
> By GAIL RUSSELL CHADDOCK
> Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>
> More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served
> time there, according to a new report by the Justice
> Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in
> the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.
>...
One wonders why, even though the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, its still ranked by non-partisan freedom groups as one of the freest countries in the world? Is this report on the entire world, or post industrialized nations? Is this based on official govt released documents, and if so, should we trust the claims made by oppressive communist regimes who routinely incarcerate or murder political
dissidents?)
Any link D?
Uh-oh.
IRAQ Has World's Highest Government Sanctioned Mass Murder Rate
By Concerned humanist
Staff writer of The Humanist Science World Monitor
Excerpt
"More than 300,000 Iraqis are buried in mass graves, according to a new report by the Justice for the world Department released Sunday. With a population of 24 million, that's 1 in 80 people who end up in an unmarked mass grave, the highest government sanctioned mass murder rate in the world. If the current trends had continued, then over the life of the Hussien regime it is likely another 300,000 people would have ended up in these mass graves. The average Kurd had a 1 in 20 chance of ending up on the death end of an IRAQ Government action, while the average Shi-ite had a 1 in 10 chance of ending up murdered."
> Uh-oh.
>
> US Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate
>
> By GAIL RUSSELL CHADDOCK
> Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>
> More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served
> time there, according to a new report by the Justice
> Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in
> the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.
>...
One wonders why, even though the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, its still ranked by non-partisan freedom groups as one of the freest countries in the world? Is this report on the entire world, or post industrialized nations? Is this based on official govt released documents, and if so, should we trust the claims made by oppressive communist regimes who routinely incarcerate or murder political
dissidents?)
Any link D?
Monday, August 18, 2003
27) Atlas Shrugging in Santa Fe
FrontPageMag
by Ed Tinsley
"Earlier this year, Santa Fe passed a law imposing an $8.50 minimum
wage on all businesses in the city with 25 or more workers. The hike
takes effect in 2004, with the wage rising to $10.50 -- more than
double the national minimum -- by 2008. Not only is this the highest
living wage in the U.S.; it is also unrivaled in its impact on
private industry, since most of the 90 or so living-wage laws
nationwide apply only to firms that do business with local
government. ... Wiser New Mexico communities are now taking advantage
of Santa Fe’s folly. Albuquerque and Lincoln County, for example,
have basically hung out 'open for business' signs." (08/15/03)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9410
FrontPageMag
by Ed Tinsley
"Earlier this year, Santa Fe passed a law imposing an $8.50 minimum
wage on all businesses in the city with 25 or more workers. The hike
takes effect in 2004, with the wage rising to $10.50 -- more than
double the national minimum -- by 2008. Not only is this the highest
living wage in the U.S.; it is also unrivaled in its impact on
private industry, since most of the 90 or so living-wage laws
nationwide apply only to firms that do business with local
government. ... Wiser New Mexico communities are now taking advantage
of Santa Fe’s folly. Albuquerque and Lincoln County, for example,
have basically hung out 'open for business' signs." (08/15/03)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9410
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Who was right? A lament for the Vietnam War protestors.
S said:
> I have justified the comment and said why I made it now. Perhaps you
> have not read it. I beg your pardon? I was not actively rooting
> for the victory of any 'murderous regime'.
In your comment to me, when asked why you hold Fumento morally culpable for
AIDS deaths in Africa, you stated "He was busy insisting that AIDS was a
non-heterosexual problem and thus lending sanction to those who chose to
ignore it as a "gay problem" and even "the wrath of God" instead of doing
very much about it. The result, of course not limited to him, was many
millions of needless deaths..." and "He wrote what he wrote despite the
evidence [to the contrary]...I hold supposed intellectuals who twist the
truth responsible for the consequences of being believed."
Would it be fair to rephrase this contextually to say "He was busy insisting
that being concerned about something [heterosexual AIDS transmission] was
senseless and thus lended sanction to those who chose to ignore that
something instead of doing something about it, resulting in many millions of
deaths and seriously compromised health of millions more" and "He said this
despite evidence to the contrary, and can be held morally culpable for being
believed"
Now, given that contextually rephrasing, by your own criteria, you can be
held morally accountable for the deaths in Indochina. Rewording your above
statement with Indochina related events reveals:
"She was busy insisting that something [our involvment] was senselss thus
lended sanction to those who chose to ignore it as something else [colonial
expansionism of the US, a revolution in vietnam, all for tin/oil, etc]
instead of doing very much about it. The result, of course not limited to
her, was many millions of needless deaths..." and "She wrote what he wrote
despite the evidence [to the contrary]...I hold supposed intellectuals who
twist the truth responsible for the consequences of being believed."
And here you say nearly exactly that
I was rooting for the end
> of our senseless and murderous involvment in a pseudo-war we should
> never have entered.
Now clearly, by your own criteria, promoting something that leads to the
death of people means you must bare some of the blame for those deaths.
I certainly take issue with the accuracy of your summation of Fumento's
points, so perhaps you take issue with the accuracy of some of my points,
thus clearing you of any blame for the millions of deaths in Indochina. I
would like to know which points you contest.
The single most important point of contention seems to be that you do not
find the US's involvement in Indochina as a morally valid one in any shape
or form, and I consider it valid. The involvement was certainly handled
poorly in many cases, and outwardly disgustingly in still others, yet the
principle of involvement remained a morally just one. I wonder on what
moral justifcation your assessment that is was not on. To not put the
spotlight solely on you, I will outline the moral justification I feel we
had (actually that morally required us) to get involved in the Indochina
conflict.
1) South Vietnam requested our assistance in defending their soveriegnty, to
which we agreed
2) North Vietnam, a communist, murderous, dictatorship invaded South
Vietnam, intent on 'unification' or 'liberation' against the will of the
majority in the south
3) It is morally valid to defend people against acts of aggression,
especially when asked and agreed
4) The United States had the military and tactical capability to defeat
North Vietnam
5) The Vietnam war was essentially a proxy war between the US and the Soviet
Union, one which the North could have never hoped to win without the
trmendous Soviet aide.
6) The Soviet Union was a murderous regime, whos empire had expanded a
significant percentage in the previous decade, and was intent on enslaving
the population of South Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia, Laos, and
Thailand. The largest Soviet military installation outside the USSR was in
Cam Rahn Bay, in South Vietnam.
7) The United States had reason to believe that horror would befall the
people of Indochina should this effort fail
These were the essential variables available when reviewing the event in
historical context. Today we have even greater context to judge the
morallity / immorality of involvment. I invite you to dispute any of these
facts.
1) The Khmere Rouge could not have taken over Cambodia, and subsequently
slaughtered a third of its population if the now unnoccupied North
Vietnamese Army had not decimated the Pro Western well armed now abandoned
army of Lon Nol.
2) No country has done more to spread democracy and freedom throughout the
World that the United States
3) The united states SAVED the ENTIRE WORLD, TWICE, THIS CENTURY, once
against facism, and subsequently against murderou communism.
4) Communism has killed 150 - 170 million people this century.
We signed a treaty agreeing to protect South Vietnam in the event of an
invasion. An invasion perpetrated by an oppressive murderous tyranical
regime. An invasion supplied and armed by two of the three worst murderous
governments this planet has ever experienced. Fighting the expansion of a
murderous regime bent on world domination was senseless? Fighting the
enslavement of millions of people was senseless? 170 million people, this
century, died from communist regimes. 2 - 3 million died in Cambodia. 1
million died in Vietnam after the US abandonment of the region. Thats a lot
of deaths. Deaths which it can be argued you share some portion of the
moral culpability for since you A)supported the ending of efforts to prevent
said horrors and B)contributed by that support to the end of the efforts to
prevent said horrors. In rooting for the 'end' of our 'involvement' (not a
quickening of a success) you rooted for the abandonment of the people of
Indochina to the worst murderous political system this world has ever seen.
You complain about our loss of freedoms domestically, yet ignore the fact
that the people of Vietnam enjoy fewer freedoms today than they did in 1960,
a situation which you contributed to.
It was senseless to help defend these people? What is senseless was your
idealogically opposition forged in a geopolical vacuum. Its time to come to
terms with your past, perhaps in your bohemian charged youth, you saw this
as a worthy cause, you no doubt felt our involvement was principally unjust.
Your counterculture hippie social group saw fit to criticize anything and
everything that was immoral in the US, except you only seemed, and still
seem, to care about people in the US, and cared not about the peoples of the
Indochina region of the world.
I recall recently you described your vote in the recent election as the
'Lesser of two evils' The lack of recognition of this concept in regards to
US Foriegh policy post WWII is I believe the primary reason for your near
whole condemnation of US forieng Policy. A while back I invited you to
embark on a detailed examination of US Foriegn policy actions post WWII and
to deem them just or unjust with the information known at that time, I
received no response.
Today the truth is known, The Anti-war protestors of the sixties were
hi-jacked by communists and used as a tool by the North Vietnamese against
the Americans. Protests you took part in. Nearly every single military
conflict was a victory in Vietnam, what was senseless was the wanton and
callous disgregard for human life, freedom, and dignity exhibited by the
anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. While many would reasonably consider
much of Johnson's handling of the war as 'senseless' what was not senseless
was our efforts to prevent a cancerous and despotic regime from forcibly
spreading and enslaving millions.
> And I will
> not once again be dragged into the very imho revisionist views some
> here hold of the Vietnam fiasco.
I suppose you are just unable to come to terms with the fact the your direct
actions helped lead to the murder of millions of people and the enslavement
of 10's of millions. You were too busy opposing the US uncritically to look
at the horrific murderous regimes spreading throughout the world that the US
was fighting.
There is a whole world of difference. If you
> can not see the difference then I don't see we have an basis for
> further dialogue.
>
I invite you to counter my points made for the US intervention bieng morally
just in principal, or explain how this is revisionist, as opposed to the
fact that the general media and education system dont mention Vietnam from
the moment the US left until clinton 'closed that sad chapter' and re-opened
trade. Ask high school kids how many US soldiers were killed and Vietnam
and they will more than likely know the answer, and then ask them how many
cambodians were killed, or how many South Vietnamese were killed, or how
much aide Russia was pumping into Vietnam, or how many people stalin killed,
or mao... etc. etc. See what answers they give, and then see what history
is 'revionist' and which history is an accurate description of the real
geopolitical climate and motivations involved.
Last question, if the US had won that conflict in a manner similiar to the
Korean Conflict, do you think we would have seen the same massive and
widespread slaughter that we ended up seeing with the US Withdrawel? I know
you have admittedly little to comment on the Korean War (which was nearly
identical in context to the vietnam war) but had the North Korean communists
won the Korean War, would we be seeing a vibrant democratic and economic
powerhouse in a unified and 'liberated' communist Korea, or would Kim Jong
Il merely have a million more postures and statues up of himself with 4
million starving every year instead of 2.
Michael Dickey
S said:
> I have justified the comment and said why I made it now. Perhaps you
> have not read it. I beg your pardon? I was not actively rooting
> for the victory of any 'murderous regime'.
In your comment to me, when asked why you hold Fumento morally culpable for
AIDS deaths in Africa, you stated "He was busy insisting that AIDS was a
non-heterosexual problem and thus lending sanction to those who chose to
ignore it as a "gay problem" and even "the wrath of God" instead of doing
very much about it. The result, of course not limited to him, was many
millions of needless deaths..." and "He wrote what he wrote despite the
evidence [to the contrary]...I hold supposed intellectuals who twist the
truth responsible for the consequences of being believed."
Would it be fair to rephrase this contextually to say "He was busy insisting
that being concerned about something [heterosexual AIDS transmission] was
senseless and thus lended sanction to those who chose to ignore that
something instead of doing something about it, resulting in many millions of
deaths and seriously compromised health of millions more" and "He said this
despite evidence to the contrary, and can be held morally culpable for being
believed"
Now, given that contextually rephrasing, by your own criteria, you can be
held morally accountable for the deaths in Indochina. Rewording your above
statement with Indochina related events reveals:
"She was busy insisting that something [our involvment] was senselss thus
lended sanction to those who chose to ignore it as something else [colonial
expansionism of the US, a revolution in vietnam, all for tin/oil, etc]
instead of doing very much about it. The result, of course not limited to
her, was many millions of needless deaths..." and "She wrote what he wrote
despite the evidence [to the contrary]...I hold supposed intellectuals who
twist the truth responsible for the consequences of being believed."
And here you say nearly exactly that
I was rooting for the end
> of our senseless and murderous involvment in a pseudo-war we should
> never have entered.
Now clearly, by your own criteria, promoting something that leads to the
death of people means you must bare some of the blame for those deaths.
I certainly take issue with the accuracy of your summation of Fumento's
points, so perhaps you take issue with the accuracy of some of my points,
thus clearing you of any blame for the millions of deaths in Indochina. I
would like to know which points you contest.
The single most important point of contention seems to be that you do not
find the US's involvement in Indochina as a morally valid one in any shape
or form, and I consider it valid. The involvement was certainly handled
poorly in many cases, and outwardly disgustingly in still others, yet the
principle of involvement remained a morally just one. I wonder on what
moral justifcation your assessment that is was not on. To not put the
spotlight solely on you, I will outline the moral justification I feel we
had (actually that morally required us) to get involved in the Indochina
conflict.
1) South Vietnam requested our assistance in defending their soveriegnty, to
which we agreed
2) North Vietnam, a communist, murderous, dictatorship invaded South
Vietnam, intent on 'unification' or 'liberation' against the will of the
majority in the south
3) It is morally valid to defend people against acts of aggression,
especially when asked and agreed
4) The United States had the military and tactical capability to defeat
North Vietnam
5) The Vietnam war was essentially a proxy war between the US and the Soviet
Union, one which the North could have never hoped to win without the
trmendous Soviet aide.
6) The Soviet Union was a murderous regime, whos empire had expanded a
significant percentage in the previous decade, and was intent on enslaving
the population of South Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia, Laos, and
Thailand. The largest Soviet military installation outside the USSR was in
Cam Rahn Bay, in South Vietnam.
7) The United States had reason to believe that horror would befall the
people of Indochina should this effort fail
These were the essential variables available when reviewing the event in
historical context. Today we have even greater context to judge the
morallity / immorality of involvment. I invite you to dispute any of these
facts.
1) The Khmere Rouge could not have taken over Cambodia, and subsequently
slaughtered a third of its population if the now unnoccupied North
Vietnamese Army had not decimated the Pro Western well armed now abandoned
army of Lon Nol.
2) No country has done more to spread democracy and freedom throughout the
World that the United States
3) The united states SAVED the ENTIRE WORLD, TWICE, THIS CENTURY, once
against facism, and subsequently against murderou communism.
4) Communism has killed 150 - 170 million people this century.
We signed a treaty agreeing to protect South Vietnam in the event of an
invasion. An invasion perpetrated by an oppressive murderous tyranical
regime. An invasion supplied and armed by two of the three worst murderous
governments this planet has ever experienced. Fighting the expansion of a
murderous regime bent on world domination was senseless? Fighting the
enslavement of millions of people was senseless? 170 million people, this
century, died from communist regimes. 2 - 3 million died in Cambodia. 1
million died in Vietnam after the US abandonment of the region. Thats a lot
of deaths. Deaths which it can be argued you share some portion of the
moral culpability for since you A)supported the ending of efforts to prevent
said horrors and B)contributed by that support to the end of the efforts to
prevent said horrors. In rooting for the 'end' of our 'involvement' (not a
quickening of a success) you rooted for the abandonment of the people of
Indochina to the worst murderous political system this world has ever seen.
You complain about our loss of freedoms domestically, yet ignore the fact
that the people of Vietnam enjoy fewer freedoms today than they did in 1960,
a situation which you contributed to.
It was senseless to help defend these people? What is senseless was your
idealogically opposition forged in a geopolical vacuum. Its time to come to
terms with your past, perhaps in your bohemian charged youth, you saw this
as a worthy cause, you no doubt felt our involvement was principally unjust.
Your counterculture hippie social group saw fit to criticize anything and
everything that was immoral in the US, except you only seemed, and still
seem, to care about people in the US, and cared not about the peoples of the
Indochina region of the world.
I recall recently you described your vote in the recent election as the
'Lesser of two evils' The lack of recognition of this concept in regards to
US Foriegh policy post WWII is I believe the primary reason for your near
whole condemnation of US forieng Policy. A while back I invited you to
embark on a detailed examination of US Foriegn policy actions post WWII and
to deem them just or unjust with the information known at that time, I
received no response.
Today the truth is known, The Anti-war protestors of the sixties were
hi-jacked by communists and used as a tool by the North Vietnamese against
the Americans. Protests you took part in. Nearly every single military
conflict was a victory in Vietnam, what was senseless was the wanton and
callous disgregard for human life, freedom, and dignity exhibited by the
anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. While many would reasonably consider
much of Johnson's handling of the war as 'senseless' what was not senseless
was our efforts to prevent a cancerous and despotic regime from forcibly
spreading and enslaving millions.
> And I will
> not once again be dragged into the very imho revisionist views some
> here hold of the Vietnam fiasco.
I suppose you are just unable to come to terms with the fact the your direct
actions helped lead to the murder of millions of people and the enslavement
of 10's of millions. You were too busy opposing the US uncritically to look
at the horrific murderous regimes spreading throughout the world that the US
was fighting.
There is a whole world of difference. If you
> can not see the difference then I don't see we have an basis for
> further dialogue.
>
I invite you to counter my points made for the US intervention bieng morally
just in principal, or explain how this is revisionist, as opposed to the
fact that the general media and education system dont mention Vietnam from
the moment the US left until clinton 'closed that sad chapter' and re-opened
trade. Ask high school kids how many US soldiers were killed and Vietnam
and they will more than likely know the answer, and then ask them how many
cambodians were killed, or how many South Vietnamese were killed, or how
much aide Russia was pumping into Vietnam, or how many people stalin killed,
or mao... etc. etc. See what answers they give, and then see what history
is 'revionist' and which history is an accurate description of the real
geopolitical climate and motivations involved.
Last question, if the US had won that conflict in a manner similiar to the
Korean Conflict, do you think we would have seen the same massive and
widespread slaughter that we ended up seeing with the US Withdrawel? I know
you have admittedly little to comment on the Korean War (which was nearly
identical in context to the vietnam war) but had the North Korean communists
won the Korean War, would we be seeing a vibrant democratic and economic
powerhouse in a unified and 'liberated' communist Korea, or would Kim Jong
Il merely have a million more postures and statues up of himself with 4
million starving every year instead of 2.
Michael Dickey
> Not recent enough, unfortunately.
>
> > How lethal is SARS?
> >
> > Globally, it's about seven percent, in the same league as other forms of
> > pneumonia. This is notwithstanding the May 1 Washington Post
> reporting that
> > WHO official Mark Salter said it was 10 percent. A CNN.com
> article that day
> > was titled: "SARS Death Rate Rising," but it had Salter saying it "could
> > likely reach 10 percent." "Could" and "is" are not the same.
>
> On this same day this article is dated, WHO raised estimated SARS fatality
> rate to 15% (see
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27675-2003May7.html) while
> the Lancet published a paper putting SARS fatality rate in Hong Kong at
> 20%.
>
AND
Adrian Tymes wrote:
"With an estimated fatality rate of 40% among those over 60 I don't find it
particularly minor. "
The problem with the Lancet data is that it's heavily skewed towards the
elderly and we know the elderly are far more likely to die of any type of
pneumonia, and second it all comes from a single source. Had they done the
study in the US and Europe they would have found a SARS rate of zero
percent. If one is willing to extrapolate from a subset of people in Hong
Kong to all of SARS, they should be willing to extrapolate from ALL US and
EU cases. Obviously the SARS death rate is heavily dependent on the quality
of hospital care. The 20% fatality rate of SARS is 20% *in Hong Kong*. Any
idea what the fatality rate is for post industrialized west nations with
decent health care systems? Answer, 0% See -
http://www.who.int/csr/sars/country/2003_05_16/en/
Regards,
Michael Dickey
http://www.fumento.com/advise.html (posted today)
The spread of SARS continues to slow and at less than 7,739 cases and 611
cases it's still just a bit shy of the 1918-1919 flu pandemic (with 40
million deaths) to which the media is wont to compare this new disease. So
it wasn't surprising that they jumped all over a new study published in The
Lancet online indicating that the fatality rate for SARS might be much
higher than would seem by simply dividing deaths by cases. Indeed, said the
study, the death rate could be as high as 20 percent. But there are just a
few minor problems here. First, the subjects in the study were
disproportionately among the elderly. SARS, like all pathogens that kill
primarily through pneumonia, picks on old people. Indeed, The Lancet study
found "The estimated case fatality rate for patients younger than 60 years
was 13.2% and 43.3% for patients aged 60 years and older." Second, not only
did all of these patients come from a single city, a huge percentage came
from a single place in that city - the now-infamous Amoy Gardens apartment
complex. Third, as the study also was careful to note, it could only look at
hospitalized persons. How many times have you had the flu? How many times
have you sought a doctor's care for it? Right. Surely it's the same with
SARS. As with flu, probably the vast majority of people who contract it
never get any medical attention; they simply recover on their own. Taking
that into account, even looking at worldwide cases versus deaths probably
grossly overstates the SARS death rate.
Finally, if the study had instead chosen as its subjects all persons in the
U.S., Europe, and Australia with SARS it would have found 109 cases as of
May 15 with no deaths. For the mathematically challenged, that's a zero
percent death rate. Obviously, the quality of medical care dramatically
impacts the death rate. In any case, it makes no more sense to extrapolate
from a portion of Hong Kong cases to the world as it does to extrapolate
from all U.S., European, and Australian cases to the world. That would be
like basing your odds of contracting malaria in Zaire based on malaria cases
in New York or vice-versa. So the best data remain those WHO posts daily on
its website. Not that the media or public health officials care anything
about all this. They've got sales and budget increases to worry about.
(Posted 05-16-2003)
>
> > How lethal is SARS?
> >
> > Globally, it's about seven percent, in the same league as other forms of
> > pneumonia. This is notwithstanding the May 1 Washington Post
> reporting that
> > WHO official Mark Salter said it was 10 percent. A CNN.com
> article that day
> > was titled: "SARS Death Rate Rising," but it had Salter saying it "could
> > likely reach 10 percent." "Could" and "is" are not the same.
>
> On this same day this article is dated, WHO raised estimated SARS fatality
> rate to 15% (see
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27675-2003May7.html) while
> the Lancet published a paper putting SARS fatality rate in Hong Kong at
> 20%.
>
AND
Adrian Tymes wrote:
"With an estimated fatality rate of 40% among those over 60 I don't find it
particularly minor. "
The problem with the Lancet data is that it's heavily skewed towards the
elderly and we know the elderly are far more likely to die of any type of
pneumonia, and second it all comes from a single source. Had they done the
study in the US and Europe they would have found a SARS rate of zero
percent. If one is willing to extrapolate from a subset of people in Hong
Kong to all of SARS, they should be willing to extrapolate from ALL US and
EU cases. Obviously the SARS death rate is heavily dependent on the quality
of hospital care. The 20% fatality rate of SARS is 20% *in Hong Kong*. Any
idea what the fatality rate is for post industrialized west nations with
decent health care systems? Answer, 0% See -
http://www.who.int/csr/sars/country/2003_05_16/en/
Regards,
Michael Dickey
http://www.fumento.com/advise.html (posted today)
The spread of SARS continues to slow and at less than 7,739 cases and 611
cases it's still just a bit shy of the 1918-1919 flu pandemic (with 40
million deaths) to which the media is wont to compare this new disease. So
it wasn't surprising that they jumped all over a new study published in The
Lancet online indicating that the fatality rate for SARS might be much
higher than would seem by simply dividing deaths by cases. Indeed, said the
study, the death rate could be as high as 20 percent. But there are just a
few minor problems here. First, the subjects in the study were
disproportionately among the elderly. SARS, like all pathogens that kill
primarily through pneumonia, picks on old people. Indeed, The Lancet study
found "The estimated case fatality rate for patients younger than 60 years
was 13.2% and 43.3% for patients aged 60 years and older." Second, not only
did all of these patients come from a single city, a huge percentage came
from a single place in that city - the now-infamous Amoy Gardens apartment
complex. Third, as the study also was careful to note, it could only look at
hospitalized persons. How many times have you had the flu? How many times
have you sought a doctor's care for it? Right. Surely it's the same with
SARS. As with flu, probably the vast majority of people who contract it
never get any medical attention; they simply recover on their own. Taking
that into account, even looking at worldwide cases versus deaths probably
grossly overstates the SARS death rate.
Finally, if the study had instead chosen as its subjects all persons in the
U.S., Europe, and Australia with SARS it would have found 109 cases as of
May 15 with no deaths. For the mathematically challenged, that's a zero
percent death rate. Obviously, the quality of medical care dramatically
impacts the death rate. In any case, it makes no more sense to extrapolate
from a portion of Hong Kong cases to the world as it does to extrapolate
from all U.S., European, and Australian cases to the world. That would be
like basing your odds of contracting malaria in Zaire based on malaria cases
in New York or vice-versa. So the best data remain those WHO posts daily on
its website. Not that the media or public health officials care anything
about all this. They've got sales and budget increases to worry about.
(Posted 05-16-2003)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)