Cynical Nation

What is it about Repugs going independent that causes such paranoia and furor among the wingnuts?

Bloomberg was fine until he went independent, but now HE MUST BE DESTROYED!

I guess that among Fascists, independent thought is more frightening than anything else.

>Bloomberg was fine until he went independent...

He was fine until he started acting like he wanted to be president.

I guess that among Fascists, independent thought is more frightening than anything else.

Hmmm...what's amusing is that Bailey probably felt quite clever and proud of himself when he wrote this.

What's wrong, didn't Rush give you a witty response for that one today?

You could at least call me a "Liberal" like dumbass JMK.

Barely! You ARE indeed a Liberal.

I know you claim not to be, but everything you say screams otherwise.

And about your obsession with Limbaugh...are you saying that the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage have done what the entire American MSM has never been able to do - convert millions of Americans to their POV???

The American MSM has been, to paraphrase Chuck Schumer, "hopelessly Liberal, shamelessly Liberal and Liberal for far too long," AND YET...they haven't been able to convert any apparent sizable number of Americans o their POV.

I mean it's not as if, America were once a proudly and predominantly Liberal country UNTIL Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage converted millions of former Libs to Conservatism.

All indications are that America has always been a very Conservative nation and the likes of the aforementioned Talkers just tapped into views that resonate naturally with far more Americans.

OK, I'll admit it, while I'm happy to believe that the vast majority of Liberals are people who've been conned by a Left of center MSM and an even more misguided and Left of center academia, I steadfastly believe that the vast majority of Conservatives (well over 90%) are, like my sainted father, Conservative in spite of the best efforts by twinks like Walter Cronkite and the "fellow travelers" at the NY Times.

"The reason I mention Mike Bloomberg's trans fats ban so often is not because I enjoy sitting around eating bowls of Crisco (although I do.)"

Thanks for the visuals, Barry :P

The mainstream media isn't liberal, dumbass. The mainstream media are profit-driven corporate slaves just like Bush. Look at them attacking the "Sicko" movie that they initially gave rave reviews. Why? The huge, corrupt health care industry (which buys a lot of commercial time) doesn't like that movie.

Why complicate things? It's about money. Corporations have corrupted our political system and mainstream media, and this is destroying the country.

There is no real journalism anymore. FOX pioneered the scheme of just saying what your corporate sponsers want you to say, without even bothering to investigate. The investigative will and investigative power of our mainstream media was cut from the budget to compete with FOX as they simply spew out whatever Big Money says.

I am a registered Republican who voted for Bush the first time. I am far more conservative than Bush. I don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants; in fact, I would deport them all. I don't support public welfare, or corporate welfare: if someone needs public assistance, let them pick up trash on the highway to earn some money. I support work, not welfare. I don't support exporting American jobs to foreigners, or bringing millions of foreigners here to put Americans out of work, or allowing illegal "immigrants" to work here, period. If (according to you, not reality) we just don't have enough computer experts, but India does, then the proper way to utilize them is to go through an Indian computer services company.

Corporate greed and profits, profits, profits above all else, greed is good, huge corporate subsidies, is NOT Conservatism. You mistake your Corporatist beliefs with conservatism, as does Bush, and FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

Enron is a good example of deregulated, unfettered "free market" capitalism. This is exactly the corporate behavior that brough on the initial governmental regulations. Look at the Oil Cartel raping the nation for billions and posting record profits each quarter. They will have to be regulated, because they are too greedy and short-sighted to regulate themselves. Same with the Health Care Industry. Deregulation and free markets can only work with strong oversight. You can't let the fox run the henhouse.

There is nothing conservative about invading and occupying foreign countries without real cause. Even if you dream up a "U.N. Mandate" which there certainly wasn't, it is not conservative to follow the U.N. Iraq was not a threat. Bush and Cheney lied, just like little Scooter, who lied and obstructed justice -- but again, Bush will not allow the law to be enforced.

Enforcing the law is a conservative principle. You Corporatists don't really want the law to be enforced.

On a more positive note, like a true conservative, I fully supported the nomination of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, where they have made excellent decisions in almost every case. Many of their decisions have dismayed Corporatists such as yourself, because you don't even recognize conservatism and strict constitutional interpretation when it exercised.

I fully support the 2nd Amendment, and believe that "gun control" laws are illegal.

I fully support the 4th Amendment, and therefore find the "Patriot" Act an unconstitutional travesty, while you support it in violation of a constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

So, JMK, once and for all, I am the Conservative, you are the Corporatist ... but you don't even know it. That's why I call you a dumbass.

Merely opposing welfare (and supporting workfare) and opposing illegal immigration doesn't make you a Conservative BH, although those are, more or less Conservative ideas.

Much of the rest of your stated agenda isn't close to Conservative.

America's primary economic problem today is structural unemployment - not enough trained people to do all the jobs we need to get done.

H-1B Visas address structural unemployment and are needed.

Most of the H-1B Visas in use today are for workes in the financial services sector. They help firms like Price Waterhouse, KPMG and others address their needs and they haven't reduced salaries for workers in that sector.

My wife works for PWC and that's very much the case.

H-1B Visas DID NOT adversely impact the IT Tech sector either - the "Tech Bubble Bust" did that.

Today, the American Tech sector has rebounded well and needs more workers than we currently have.

And again, the Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, Tyco, Arthur-Anderson, etc. scandals all occurred under the loosened atmosphere of the previous administration...and were corralled by the current administration's Justice Dept and Sarb-Ox (Sarbannes-Oxley) was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by the current WH occupant.

In that regard, much as it may pain you, you must "give credit where it is due."

The 2nd Amendment is clear as to the right to bear arms....but of course, few would say that it allows any person to carry a machine gun, or a bazooka - there are laws against that which don't really violate the 2nd Amendment.

Likewise, while our landline phone calls are protected, that's NOT the case for emails, cell phone calls, etc.

Technology has simply out-paced the 4th Amendment.

It's not only legal for the government to intercept and rfecord cell phone calls, you and I can do the same.

In fact, that's how Italy found out about the 25 CIA agents who'd captured an Egyptian refugee and terror suspect known as Abu Omar and handed over to another nation in our "rendition" program.

Just as machine guns and bazookas and RPGs aren't covered under the 2nd Amendment, cell phone calls and emails aren't covered under the 4th.

JMK, I hate to humiliate you again, but believe it or not, the 4th Amendment was implemented BEFORE the invention of the telephone.

According to your dumbass logic, "landline" telephone calls are also NOT private. Neither are letters written with ball-point pens! These were "new technologies", right? Or do you think George Washington called out for pizza?

Somehow I doubt you have ever read the 4th amendment.

"...believe it or not, the 4th Amendment was implemented BEFORE the invention of the telephone." (BH)


Uhhhh, yes that's what the phrase "technology outstripping the law" MEANS.

N.B. (oh, that means Nota Bene, or Note Well) - The 2nd Amendment was crafted BEFORE the advent of the machine gun, the RPG, etc. and the LAW decided that those "new technologies" WEREN'T covered by the 2nd Amendment.

And it wasn't merely an arbitrary decision, the law looked at and weighed the risks versus the rewards or "need" for such firepower and decided it COULD be limited in spite of the 2nd Amendment.

Getting clearer now?

With cell phone calls being able to be tracked and recorded by individuals (full disclosure - I've done it, I've sold some culled information, but I admit to breaking no laws...that's for any law enforcement who may read this), there's no sense seeking to protect those "open communications" from government if any cop, as a private citizen could access them.

Since cell phone communications and emails are so easily breached and so hard to protect, they currently enjoy few of the protections that landline calls have.

I'd have to get into your home and tap your landline, but an enterprising fellow could park a van outside your home and ghost your emails...and I can take down cell phone communications with a simple scanner.

Today's cell phones almost all have GPS built in and yes, it can be used to track people who, say, drive off a snow-bound road in New Hampshire, or it could be used to track a suspect's location, as well.

As I said, neither the 2nd,, nor the 4th Amendment are umbrellas you seem to think they are.

There are some legal scholars who believe ALL earlier protections should simply and automatically be transferred to all new technologies, but others argue (and I agree) that there is no basis for that and each new technology must be judged on its own merits, the way the machine gun and the RPG were.

Clearer still?

See, I acknowledge that there are some legal minds that believe as you do, but you seem blithely unaware that there are many others who believe that some new technologies like machine guns and cell phone calls that don't necessarily warrant the protections of those Amendments.

I'm skeptical about offering this site, because it could lead to a little knowledge on your part, and you know what they say about "a little knowledge," BUT I'm going to offer it anyway - the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) at http://www.eff.org/
has a lot of information on the issue of electronic privacy.

YOU probably SHOULD read some of their articles, because your views based on how you seem to think things "SHOULD BE," simply isn't how they really are.

Seriously, you make that call to Afghanistan, you have a very good chance of being monitored....and I like that situation, very much.

I'd want to know why a guy named Mayes, or Hankins, or Lattimore or Keane might be calling some raghead in Afghanistan, or why someone with one of those names is emailing a jihadi website.

It might be harmless (in that case, no harm, no foul), it might not (in that case, I'd hope they'd shoot first and ask their questions when the smoke clears).

Hi Me,

I would like to remind myself that a telephone call is still a telephone call (private communication protected by the 2nd Amendment) even if the cell phone has GPS.

I need to remember that the issue was PRIVACY, and the right not to be spied on without cause, which didn't change ONE IOTA with the advent of the cell phone.

Come on, me, stop being such a dumbass!

There's where your wrong....the telephone and the cell phone are not even remotely related.

The landline telephone is to the cell phone what a six shot 22 caliber pistol is to a Tec-9 machine pistol.

As there is NO expectation of privacy in using ANY public-use facility (ie. a pay phone, a sat-com satellite, etc.) the protections differ between landline telephones and cell phones.

YOU do NOT have a right "NOT to spied on."

There is no such right.

Even if there were such a right, the government couldn't guarantee it.

Not that they would, in fact, the government USES the fact that there is NO SUCH RIGHT to their advantage when prosecuting crimes.

A favorite and very legal practice of the government is to put a novice criminal suspect (like a Barely Hanging) and have informants ply incriminating information out of them.

Just as when you walk or drive down any street, you have a good chance of being photographed dozens of times on various security or surveillance cameras, any and everything we send out into the ether (bouncing off satellites) is fair game. There are no protections within such "public-use" facilities.

If you're not a recluse, I want you to stop talking about how you believe things to be....and start acting upon these beliefs of yours - challenge video surveillance in public places, make that call to Amhad in Afghanistan.

And let me know how it works out for you.

God I'm stupid. I don't even know what I'm saying most of the time, all I know is that CLINTON DID IT FIRST!

I'm glad Bush lived up to restoring honor and decency to the White House and came through on his guarantee to FIRE anyone involved in the Plame case by getting his little buddy Scooter Pooter off the hook. It makes me proud to be a neo, er I mean corpora, er I mean CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!

"I would like to remind myself that a telephone call is still a telephone call..." (BH)


Emails and cell phone transmissions DO NOT enjoy the protections that landlines do.

The fact that the federal courts are hearing cases like Bartnicki v. Vopper proves that.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I really don't care how YOU interpret the Constitution Barely, as thankfully you're not forging laws and re-interpreting that document.

The courts....America's courts, at this time, interpret it a lot differently than apparently you would, Barely.

The federal courts have NOT ruled "that a phone call is a phone call," in FACT, a number of courts have already ruled that any device that uses any public-use, public-domain facilities is not protected as "private property."

I tend to agree with THAT particular opinion.

We are the party of law and order. Isn't it time Duke Cunningham was released?

I like your colorful way of surrendering Barely.

Once you've realized you don't have an argument, you move to the non sequitor.

You did it with H-1B Visas, RICO, and now privacy...the non sequitor = the white flag for Barely, who has now taken on a new persona.

I feel like the therapist dealing with "transference," where patients sometimes take on the mannerisms of the therapist...I'll admit, it's a pretty incredible feeling.

Hyuk, that's righ, Bailey beat me on every count: H1B, RICO, privacy, guns, and he exposed me for the mind-controlled corporate sheep I am, thinking that Bush and Cheney are on MY SIDE!

My masters have convinced me that the government should take away my property BEFORE my trial so I can't defend myself. The government should spy on all of my phone calls, and stop me anytime to search for anything. My masters have made me think that I want to pay $10,000 a year for health care instead of having universal health care like EVERY SINGLE OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY, despite the fact that the United States has the worst health care for medium to low income individuals. My masters make me jump for joy when the Estate Tax is revoked, even though it doesn't effect me personally but instead sets up family dynasties for the richest families, like the Kennedys. My masters make me think that what is good for corporations is good for me, or would be except that I am a unionized fireman who doesn't face the problems of an ordinary, unprotected American worker.

Hyuk, I'm working hard every day to bust my fireman's union. It is anti-American. Our firemenn will be whomever will work the cheapest, with no communistic union protection.

I, JMK, hereby denounce and reject my union membership and all of its benefits, cause I don't wanna be no hypocrite!

Barely, I didn't mean to frustrate you. That was never my intent.

From my end, it's not about "winning" an argument, or "beating" someone in a debate. These discussions are NEITHER of those, anyway, at least not from my perspective.

I think you're blaming me for frustration that is really of your own doing. After all, YOU yourself proved that H-1B Visas went from around 50,000 in 1993 to slightly over 1 Million by 2000....OK, at least the article you posted did.

Moreover Clinton was RIGHT on H-1B Visas, in my view. He was RIGHT to sign those much needed increased limits into law.

G W Bush was WRONG to reduce the limits.

And again, on RICO, the article that YOU yourself posted, an article that was indeed critical of RICO, still acknowldeged the FACTS that (1) NO property can ever be confiscated "on suspicion," as you'd erroneously asserted, ONLY "UPON conviction" and (2) that "ALL the assetts" of a defendant are NEVER frozen upon a Grand Jury indictment - ONLY those deemed by the court to be "ill-gotten."

Without RICO people like Michael Milliken, Ivan Boesky and others would be ripping folks like yourself off big-time, absconding with pension funds, etc.

Ironically enough, YOU'RE arguing in favor of allowing the indicted thief to be able to transfer those stolen funds overseas, put them under another family member's name, into numbered accounts offshore, etc., where they couldn't be touched. I can understand your frustration in arguing THAT.

But believe me, I didn't frustrate you over RICO, the truth did...a truth attested to in the very article you yourself posted.

Moreover, I SUPPORT a form of Universal Health Care....I have for a long time.

Neither local governments nor Corporations should be paying for their employees health insurance.

It hurts America's ability to compete in the global business climate.

I support a bare bones "universal health care" program WITH restrictions on visits (somewhere between 2 to 4 per year) and rationing, like they have in England, Canada and France, AND we keep private insurance available to all those willing and able to pay for it.

That would seem very fair to me, as (1) it would put the burden of healthcare squarely where it belongs, on the working taxpayers who're receiving it and (2) it would mainatain a pay-as-you-go private insurance (like GHI) for those willing and able to spend some more money for better quality care.

Like I said, I didn't mean to frustrate you to this degree...and in reality, as I just pointed out it's NOT me who has frustrated you, it's the truth.

That's why the articles you post consistently back up what I've already told you.

Seriously Barely, I know I jump on you pretty hard from time to time (it's hard not to, given some of the crazy arguments you make), but that's because I can't let some of these misconceptions you espouse go unchallenged.

I DON'T mean to frustrate you, certainly not to this extent. I don't know....I may well be wrong (hope so), but it seems that you've gotten really emotional in your more recent posts and, well...I care and it's a little worrisome, that's all.

Well me, I must say that a lot of what I state is DEAD WRONG.

Boesky was not prosecuted under RICO at all, though Milken was -- 1/2 wrong.

Unfortunately, Milken is still a billionaire:

"With an estimated net worth of around $2.1 billion as of 2007, he is ranked by Forbes magazine as the 458th richest person in the world.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken

He is still the darling of Republican "free market" zealots everywhere!

So ... I guess RICO doesn't really work anyway, not when you have powerful Repug friends and a lot of cash.

Heh, I know that Bailey's argument was that RICO has been used to stop innocent people from mounting a defense, because they had no access to their money or resources, even though they weren't CONFISCATED of course, I mean, the government merely took control of their money and resources until they were forced to plea, er, I mean, until they admitted they were guilty, but I'm going to play stupid on this one!

Dur hyuk, I also realize that Bailey was 100% right when he said that under Bush there were A MILLION foreigners taking American jobs in the destroyed field of computer programming. That was all he said, and I denied it, but I was wrong and he was right.

Hur hur, I guess I seem either retarded or callous to suggest that we should still have millions of foreigners taking American jobs here in a field that has already been utterly destroyed, so much so that college kids shun the field and go into MPA (Masters of Parasitism) degree plans instead.

Hyuk, I guess I seem kind of like I hate America when I cheer our industries going to India while our population goes to work at Wal-Mart. I wonder if I know that India now makes more money off of computer software services than America? Probably not, I only listen to Rush Limbaugh, duh hur.

H1B visas have destroyed the future of America in technology, but, hyuk!, we can just hire those well-educated Indians! What the problemo, dude???!!????

I never said Miliken OR Boesky were prosecuted under RICO Barely (you must've "read that into my post")...I noted that THAT'S one of the most effective tools the government has to go after pension raiders, etc.

The point being that the law MUST be able to freeze the ill-gotten assetts of suspects INDICTED for such fiduciary crimes.

If it could be argued that the courts shouldn't have that power, I'd have made that argument, but it can't be made, in light of the damage that would wreak on the victims of such crimes.

The batshit crazy or "Barely Hanging" argument I took issue with over your mischaacterization of RICO was your stating that "RICO allows government to confiscate (assetts) based solely on suspicion."

That's untrue and the very article you posted acknowledged (1) that assetts can ONLY be confiscated upon conviction and (2) acknowledged the distinction between "confiscation" and "freezing ill-gotten assetts," which you still don't seem able to comprehend.

As to H-1B Visas, you did NOT argue that "There were 1 million foreigners on H-1B Visas under Bush, stealing American jobs," you never made such an argument.

The argument you DID make was that "H-1B Visas exploded under Bush and undermined the U.S. Tech field, by replacing well paid Ameircan workers, with lower paid foreign imports."

I rightfully noted that the H-1B Visas exploded in the 1990s, under Clinton, and that the limits were reduced back to their initial positions under Bush....which, ironically enough, is precisely what the article you posted on that topic showed - H-1B Visas went from 50,000 in 1993 to just over 1 Million in 2000.

Moreover, not one American has ever suggested rescinding H-1B Visas for those already here. NOT ONE...and it would be wrong to suggest that.

H-1B Visas have been invaluable in dealing with Structural Unemployment.

If you left the Tech Field, as you suggest, in the wake of the Tech Bubble Bust, you probably shouldn't have been working in that field to begin with. The Tech Field has been adding thousands of new jobs every year since 2003. I believe my brother Chris, is right that, "If you didn't get back into the tech field after the Tech Bubble Bust of 2000, you probably didn't belong in that field."

H-1B Visas are not only common in the Tech field, but in the financial services sector, in which my wife works, as well, and they haven't had ANY negative impact on salaries nor have they led to Americans "losing their jobs to lower waged foreign workers."

The current Democratic Congress looks poised to raise the H-1B Visa limit once again...and that would almost certainly be a very good thing.

The "Tech Support" jobs that DID go to India weren't "tech jobs." You don't have to be an IT specialist to read from a prepared script.

You rail against "outsourcing" without understanding it. Thousands of Americans are now taking what are called "medical vacations," where they combine a vacation with some medical care abroad. For instance, ou can get a knee replacement in India for around $3,000 as opposed to $48,000 here.

In a very real sense that's "outsourcing," and it's good for those patients and it's good overall, as it forces us to look at things like medical malpractice premiums and other ancillary costs that make medical care here so expensive.

Barely, you're frustrated because you took reckless and indefensible positions on H-1B Visas, on RICO and on privacy rights. You feel bottled into your positions, but you're not.

You only remain trapped or bottled into those positions so long as you continue to defend them....although, you HAVE been retrenching, in admitting that Bush inherited 1 Million H-1B Visas (though still somehow blaming hime for them?) and now calling "the freezing of ill-gotten assetts," CONFISCATION, which it is not.

You don't have to acknowledge an opposing position is right, you can merely let it drop and later re-state your views differently. I'm not looking or expecting you to admit you were wrong, I merely respond when you defend or amplify an obviously wrong position.

Hyuk! I sayed: "Without RICO people like Michael Milliken, Ivan Boesky and others would be ripping folks like yourself off big-time, absconding with pension funds, etc."

Duh hur!

Looks like I was lying, durrr, or just plain ol' dumb, yep!

Duh hur, Bailey never blamed Bush for all of the million workers, hyuk! He only said that under Bush, a million foreigners were taking American jobs, duh hur! Looks like he was right! Even I admit it!

On RICO I was wrong, on H1B Bailey was right, hyuk!

Duh huh huh ... now listen to me, I'm saying that MILLIONS of Americans get their medical care in third world countries, because IT FUN! Even playin' field, yep! Millions of high paying jobs leave FOR CHEAP LABOR FOR CORPORATE GREED, but hey, hyuk!, you can get knee surgery in India, and lot's o' people do dis, yup! Oh, it's so fair, cause anyone can take 'vantage of dat good ol' third world medicine!

Hyuk, I'm a dumbass. I was wrong on all counts. Bailey knows lots of real people who left the Computer Science field, and he has interviewed wid Microsoft a dozen times, and dey wants him, but den dey tells him dat dey pay 25% less than da industreee standerd, in an area dat is 40% more expensive dan avarage!!!

Luks like dat Bill Gates just wan him some cheapo labors, yessah!

Heh heh, dat Bailey be right on da money! He intaview wid Microsoft not long ago, an' dey offah him WAY BELOW MARKET WAGE so he don' takes it, now dey just goes ta Canada where dey be able to import all da cheep labah dey wants! Hahahahahaha, SCREW AMERICA! WORK CHEEP OR JEST DIE! ... eh, 'cept for firefightahs like me, we gots us a UNION!

===

Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) will open a software development center in Canada by the end of the year, a move that will enable the software giant to hire more foreign workers without running up against the limitations of U.S. immigration law.

The center will be located in Vancouver, British Columbia, less than three hours away from Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Wash.

While the new center will let Microsoft tap into local talent in the city of Vancouver to help develop new software products, it will also offer the added benefit of allowing it "to continue to recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by the immigration issues in the U.S.," the company said.

Microsoft cofounder and Chairman Bill Gates has been among the most outspoken critics of the current limits on foreign workers who can enter the country. Gates has repeatedly pressed lawmakers to raise the cap on the number of so-called H-1B visas, which are given out to "highly skilled" workers.

With the Canadian site, Microsoft would be able to hire software engineers and other technology talent from places such as India, Pakistan, Russia and China without putting a dent in the allotment of visas it can use to employ people at its headquarters. Canadian immigration law contains no limits on how many foreign workers can enter the country and the path to citizenship is generally seen as easier than in the U.S.

RICO's been used on numerous corporate raiders, Barely (people who've absconded with pension funds, etc.)....you have a right not to like RICO, I don't take issue with that, I take issue ith you not understanding what RICO is, why it's used, how it was overhauled and reformed in the mid-1990s, etc.

I also take issue with your not understanding the difference between "freezing ill-gotten assetts," and confiscation, and your not understanding the difference between an indictment and "suspicion."

Bill Gates, like the management at places like KPMG, PWC and other larger financial services institutions sees "structural unemployment" as their biggest problem - not enough trained American workers to do those "highly skilled" jobs.

H-1B Visas address the problem of structural unemployment and they address it very well. H-1B Visas exploded from a mere 50,000 back in 1993 to over 1 Million by 2000...a Democratic President signed two limit increases into law. G W Bush made the MISTAKE of reducing those limits back to their default positions, partly due to the decreased demand in the wake of the Tech Bubble Bust, but that was short-sighted, as many other fields use H-1B Visa workers, as many fields suffer from "structural unemployment."

Once again Barely, I TAKE issue with your not understanding "structural unemployment," not your opposition to H-1B Visas.

Your opposition means nothing, as the current Democratic Congress is set to raise the H-1B Visa limit again.

Funny story, the people working here on H-1B Visas get the same salaries their American counterparts get. My wife's company (PWC) uses many H-1B Visa employees and salaries haven't gone down at all.

The H-1B Visa didn't put American tech workers out of work, the Tech Bubble Bust of 2000 did that.

I know that my brother Chris works in the tech field and he's never had a gap in employment back to 1991, when he started working.

The U.S. tech sector has rebounded well since the Tech Bubble implosion of 2000...and I feel bad for anyone who entered the job market at that time of giddy over-exuberance.

Lots of people entered the Tech Field in the late 1990s who should've rightfully been flipping burgers, teaching history, or been taking any number of other Civil Service Exams (Police, Fire, Sanitation, etc.)...a lot of people with sub-par skills (1) came to see themselves as far more valubale then they actually were and (2) valued thier skills (dollar-wise) far more than employers naturally would.

As a result, there were a number of folks who got jobs in various tech sectors in the late 1990s, ONLY due to the "irrational exuberance" Alan Greenspan warned everyone about.

The tech bubble of the late 1990s was a very bad thing for America and especially for its small investors. It never should've happened and it didn't happen "naturally," it occurred because the rules concerning IPOs were loosened and margin rate investing was made more lax.

So, yes, there are today, a fair number of window washers who once held tech sector jobs and probably never will again, because their skills weren't all that good back then, and since then, they've let them erode even further.

Those folks will either stay window washers, OR go back for re-training, either in the tech field, or somewhere else.

P.S. I'm happy to see that you've stopped posting under that ridiculous fake name, "Bailey Hankins."

It was always a rather disturbing combination to me. Bailey conjures up images of a young boy in brown short pants, a red bow-tie, and perhpas a pork pie hat, while the word "Hankins" has been immortalized via the gay bath house, with regards to a particular form of the "reach around" commonly referred to as "the Hankins rub."

When you put those two together, well, it creates a subliminal message that evokes a jarring pedarist image.

The "jmk transference" thing, well, that is flattering, though it MIGHT be confusing, IF this particular phone booth were occupied by more than the two of us.

Why'd you ignore my offer of help a few posts back, Barely?

"I DON'T mean to frustrate you, certainly not to this extent. I don't know....I may well be wrong (hope so), but it seems that you've gotten really emotional in your more recent posts and, well...I care and it's a little worrisome, that's all."

Look, I can pretty much assure you that it's just us (you & me) here, and although it's an "open forum," I think any comments you make are safe...at least they're safe with me.

For what it's worth, I've
been told, more than a few times, that I have a very therapeutic personality.

I've often wondered if I should go back for some kind of counseling degree. Lord knows I haven't put my background in physiological pshychology to use...although, perhaps I should look into going back to school and combining the two.

At any rate, if you ever want to unburden yourself, you can always email me.

I'm told that I'm very approachable...and a very good listener.

Go FUCK yourself JMK!

I said that I knew H-1B Visas went from 50,000 to about 1 Million between 1993 and 2000, but I still blame G W Bush for allowing those 1 million dirty Indians on those H-1B Visas to stay here and take jobs from Americans! Can you understand that?!

I also said that I MIS-SPOKE about RICO. Yes, assets can only be confiscated upon conviction, but since an indictment is not a conviction, I still believe that the government freezes assets based only on suspicion!

I don't believe in things like "structural unemployment." It doesn't exist. If employers paid more money, they'd find many American workers ready to fill those jobs.

I also don't believe cell phones don't have the same privacy rights that landline phones have, no matter what the courts say.

I hate you! I hate your dishonesty and I hate your arrogance...you ahven't proven me wrong ever...you've just twisted my words around. You're disgusting!

Oh yeah, and I knew it! JMK is a dirty homosexual!

How else would you be familiar with what goes on in gay bath houses? How else, queer?

Maybe your a pedophile as well, if the image of Bailey (a young boy) and Hankins (some, accordng to you, queer sex act) conjures up "subliminal pedarist images."

You disgust me even more now, you filthy child molesting queer.

Well, that was indeed somewhat less cordial than I was expecting, Barely!

Now I'll admit that I may need to apologize IF indeed you DID admit that H-1B Visas went from 50,000 back in 1993 to about 1 Million in 2000, BUT I've never seen you acknowledge that.

Could you please point out where you did that?

If you can, I'll certainly apologize for continuing to believe otherwise after you'd come around on that point.

Still, as for blaming G W Bush, the President didn't have the legal authority to rescind on Executive Order all those H-1Bs, so that's a moot, as well as an inane point. Moreover, the Tech Bubble Bust eradicated a number of tech jobs in its wake, NOT the surfeit of H-1B Visa workers.

As far as RICO goes, I'm glad you NOW realize that assets can only be confiscated upon conviction, BUT, once again, you are mistaken in believing that an INDICTMENT = "suspicion," as that is just not so.

Still, I commend you for making some progress there.

As for "not believing" in things like "structural unemployment" and the fact that cell phone calls and emails don't currently have all the privacy protections accorded to landline communications...I can only say that "you have a right to be wrong, on those issues," but that creates a situation where you're basing your worldview and opinions on flawed/wrong information and that's NOT at all healthy.

I feel bad that you hate me and find me arrogant.

I know for a fact that I haven't been dishonest with you.

Like I said, I've merely taken issue with some things you've said that have been eggregiously wrong and I've tried to explain where you were wrong and why, as best I could.

I didn't mean to come across "arrogant," to you, but I get the feeling that you tend to find anyone who'd dare disagree with you to be "arrogant."

Are you, perhaps, an only child?

Just asking...

Aw Barely, why do you have to do that?

I was COMMENDING you on NOT using that disturbing moniker. I wasn’t calling you to task, so why this?

I’ve been very clear in many of my earlier posts that I’ve known and have nothing against any sexual deviants. I’ve known a few necrophiliacs, a number of people who practiced occasional bestiality and some homosexuals, as well, and never considered ANY of them “dirty.”

But while we’re on the topic, I noted earlier on that one of your hot-buttons were those online pedophile stings. They seemed to outrage you no end.

I got, and still have, the impression that yours was far more than a mere “constitutional interest,” if you know what I mean.

What I’m saying here is that you’re NOT helping yourself at all here, in fact, you’re really raising suspicions about yourself and that’s all due to this over-emotionalism on your part.

Look, I don’t know what your private life is like, and quite frankly, I don’t want to know.

I was happy that you’d abandoned what I saw as an ill-conceived moniker, that’s all.

I was actually commending you on that!

Public officials have a responsibility to ban serious threats to the public health. Trans fats are a serious threat to health. Not sure what the complaint is over the ban.

”Public officials have a responsibility to ban serious threats to the public health. Trans fats are a serious threat to health. Not sure what the complaint is over the ban.” (DBK)


Apparently this IS difficult to fathom for a lot of people DBK, but one of the primary...actually THE primary principle behind this idea called “freedom,” is self-ownership/self-responsibility – in fact, that’s what “freedom” is – self-ownership.

So that means that freedom can really only exist in a Caveat Emptor (“Let the buyer beware”) environment, where people are FREE to make bad choices, without even guidance from any outside “authority.”

But, doesn’t that put those who are less educated and more ignorant at a distinct disadvantage?

Of course it does, but that’s what FREEDOM naturally does! In fact, that’s what freedom is designed to do. Just as private property ALWAYS and inevitably leads to wide disparities in wealth often completely unrelated to mere intellect or shear effort. Often, understanding money and how to invest is allows one to garner more “private property” (stocks, bonds, commercial holdings, land, etc) than mere intellect.

There’s never been a shortage of well educated, highly intelligent University professor-types who hold far less property/wealth than many less educated, less rawly intelligent investors – THAT’S the beauty of Capitalism. It IS, in a very real sense, economic democracy!

Aristotle said, "The strong take advantage of the weak, the smart (clever) take advantage of the strong." Capitalism CELEBRATES that natural fact, while socialism seeks to chane that.

Moreover, Bloomberg’s trans fats ban was a typical political “pile on.” Way back in 2004, a full TWO years before Bloomberg even conceived his trans fat ban ("the first in the nation"), many packaged food producers began removing trans fats from their products. Once again, the private sector led and the government followed...in typical ham-handed fashion.

Whereas the private sector gives people the freedom to make their own decisions, the government seeks to micromanage people’s individual lives. "Free" (self-owning individual) don't have the right to allow an outside authority to make their decisions them...not if they seek to maintain their freedom/self-ownership.

Drinking alcohol poses a "serious threat to public health," as well, certainly to some people more than others.

The same goes for tobacco. My maternal grandmother smoked two packs a day all her life and died at 76 years of age, without emphysema, lung cancer, etc.

It is NOT the government's role to "save us from ourselves."

It certainly IS the government's role to protect private property from theft, robbery, etc. to "ensure domestic tranquility" (via police powers) and "provide for the common defense" (via the Military), but there is no way to construe the Constitution as granting the government the power to "equalize people," as it made private ownership of property sacrosanct, or to "save us from our more self-destructive impulses" by barring behaviors, that in moderation, are not harmful in many cases.

I don't smoke, BUT I feel I, or anyone else, should be free to sell cigarettes and cigars to ANY people willing to pay/exchange money for those products.

It's up to the individual to know the risks inherant in smoking or chewing tobacco and to act accordingly, same for drinking alcohol, etc.

The other problem with the Trans Fat ban is that it gives naive people the mistaken idea that banning or avoiding certain foods will maintain their health, when that really requires better all around food choices and generally more exercise for most people - more output and less input into the system.

Heh, I like the new Bailey, he's even better than me ... er, I mean the old Bailey.

I noticed that I know a lot about gay bath houses as well.

Go Bailey!

This "new Bailey" is pretty close to the "old Bailey" to me....at any rate, I'm happy to see that you've "moved back to," or "stayed with" NOT using that moniker.

I never found it "offensive," or anything, just kind of creepy for the reasons I mentioned to you...or "the new Bailey," or whomever.

Actually, JMK, despite your desperately snotty claim to the contrary, I'm pretty conversant with the notion of freedom. I don't even need ten thousand words and a hissy fit to explain it.

So you don't agree that the state should ban unhealthy substances or protect the public health. Fine. I get it. You already said that you would like to be a con man and defraud people (from an earlier comment you made in another posting some weeks ago) and you now declare that the state should not protect people from public health threats. You could just say so in so many words without all the excess verbage.

If you don't understand that Caveat Emptor ("Let the buyer beware") is the essence of freedom, then you really DON'T understand freedom.

Tobacco products may well be "unhealthy," although many people chew &/or smoke such products and live rather long and relatively healthy lives.

Therefore, banning tobacco is NOT a "proper role of government," in a FREE society.

People should (MUST) be free to make both GOOD and BAD choices....that's kind of what "freedom" is all about.

I'd rather see those products we now call "illicit drugs" be "decriminalized," BUT with harsher sentences for DUIs and for committing crimes while "under the influence."

The LAW, in a free society exists to protect private property - crimes against persons and/or property, the rights of both workers and business owners, it should NOT be a vehicle used to advance nebulous causes like "economic justice," NOR for "saving people from their more self-destructive impulses."

AIDS, Ebola, TB and terrorism are ALL "public health threats," tobacco, trans fats and over-eating are NOT. The latter are all merely poor personal choices.

And once again, NOT understanding THAT, is to not understand what freedom is.

Caveat emptor is the "essence of freedom"?

I suppose it is when one aspires to be a con man.

Claiming that trans fats are not a public health threat is either an honest mistake or the statement of someone who wishes to deceive (possibly in the manner of a con artist). If your local restaurant was serving food that had a high probability of causing food poisoning, that's a public health hazard. If they serve stuff that has a high probability of causing heart disease, you say that is not a public health hazard. Heart disease is not a public health hazard?

Please, give us four thousand words on why heart disease is not a public health hazard. Can't wait for that lengthy and con-tastic verbage. Oh, and be sure to make liberal use of capitals. That makes your point so much more effective.

Geez, what bug crawled up your ass today, DBK?

I'm not buying your food poisoning analogy. Granted, trans fats are not exactly oat bran, but the fact remains that millions of people have consumed trans fats for years with no demonstrable ill effects -- which is not the case with, say, botulism.

God forbid that the city of New York do what the entire rest of the country does and trust individual people to decide for themselves what they want to eat. What's next, is Nanny Bloomberg going to force us to eat five servings of vegetables every day?

Why not let people ingest rat poison if they want to? Restaurants should be allowed to lace food with whatever contaminates they like. If all of their customers get sick and die, they will go out of business.

You stupid Liberals need to understand that this is how freedom and the free market works.

Right on, Bailey! I see now how wrong I was. Mea culpa. Caveat emptor. JMK est fatuum.

Indeed DBK "Caveat Emptor" IS the essence of freedom, at least "freedom" as LIBERTY (self-ownership and full personal responsibility), the way America's Founders defined it.

Let us, for the sake of argument, say that health issues are so increasingly complex that most people can't keep up with all the new information, and further that it could be shown that a government mandated program would keep more people healthier and save many from an earlier than normal death.

Would that make a government mandated program ("for the people's own good, of course") the way to go?

Hmmmmm, well the answer is easy for a "free people," - NO.

BUT, it very well may be the best path for nations that aren't rooted in individualism, private property rights, etc.

In fact, down the line, studies may show that those, more totalitarian nations may become, under those conditions, healthier than "free ones."

What about all those Americans, then, who'd prefer a more interventionist government, so long as that intervention "really helps?"

Well, again, to me, that answer is easy. It would come in the form of a plane ticket to Bulgaria, or Albania or wherever else such regimes impose such things on their unfree citizens.

Trans fats, like tobacco products are NOT "public health threats."

In fact, trans fats are NOT akin to "food poisoning" they are used in all manner of foods (yes, even with the ban) for giving shape and substance to some foods.

According to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of American Council on Science and Health, trans fats constitute about two percent of our daily caloric intake, while saturated fats, which also raise LDL blood levels, make up 10 to 15 percent.

So, no, trans fats, tobacco products, sugars, etc., DO NOY constitute a "public health threat" by ANY definition.

As I said, a "public health threat" is an act that one person can do that WILL have a direct impact on others.

Your eating a load of fat will have no direct impact on me whatsoever...ditto sugar use and tobacco use.

Crack cocaine is NOT a "public health threat" and yet it's obviously highly addictive and often leads to an early death for users, BUT again, your choosing to use crack cocaine would have absolutely no impact upon me...unless you were kind enough to buy it from me, thus enriching me slightly.

See? TB, AIDs and Ebola are ALL "public health threats," as their communicable diseases, so is terrorism, because Ahmad's terroristic behavior may impact you and me.

On the other hand, you gorging yourself on sweets and dying very young, has no direct impact on anyone else, so in my view, you and I should be free to make all the good and bad decisions we can for ourselves.

Come on, relax....have a donut!

I truly can't be bothered to read lengthy treatises from obfuscatory rhetoricians in love with their own bloviation. Or con-men wannabes.

Anyway, what I did read of it was pure, unadulterated bullshit and so full of untenable arguments as to render one nearly as idiotic as its author to take a point-by-point approach to responding.

Bailey pretty much nailed it before it showed up here anyway.

But JMK, I do hope you eat many many grams of trans fats every day. Many of them. It would soon lead to fewer bloviations for the rest of us.

Corporatist Neocon Fascist JMK will change his tune if you start to apply "Caveat Emptor" and "free market" to regular people instead of corporations. For instance, shouldn't the seller (Corporation) beware when it comes to my payment? Sure, you thought that was a good check ... too bad for you. How about I buy direct from China, India, and Russia? Oh, I can't. That market isn't free. Employers are free to find employees anywhere in the world, but I can't openly shop the world market!

If JMK actually believe any of his own bullshit, he would certainly want us all to have tariff free goods from anywhere in the world. Imagine how cheap it would be to buy direct from China with no middle man! In this case, JMK wants Big Government to intefere with free enterprise.

JMK wants lots and lots of police officers and detectives to protect SELLERS (Corporations) from my checks signed with vanishing ink, but he thinks it is just fine for them to sell dangerous crap and lie about it. In that case, he thinks the buyer should have hired a team of scientists and engineers to check out every household purchase a middle class individual makes, right?

No, he is just a Corporatists, and Corporations fucking over honest working people is how the Republican Party is funded, and JMK listens to Rush Limbaugh who all but works full time for the RNC (when he isn't in rehab or in Jeb Bush's office calling in favors to stay out of prison).

JMK is a Fascist.

“Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what his exit strategy is.”
~ George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle, 1999-04-09

“What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.”
~ George W. Bush, Financial Times 2000-02-02

“All public policy should revolve around the principle that individuals are responsible for what they say and do.”
~ George W. Bush 1994

“No cause justifies the killing of innocent life.”
~ George W. Bush
A man who starved and dismembered a million Afghans in his fevered charge to kill bin Laden, and who tricked two nations into the Iraq war in a personal vendetta against one man.

“It really depends upon how our nation conducts its foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
~ George W. Bush, during the Wake Forest debate.

“Baseball is unique. It’s a game of individual achievement for a cause greater than all. Kind of like politics.”
~ George W. Bush

“I’m a uniter.”
~ George W. Bush
Is this the same George W. Bush who thumbed his nose at the U.N. and systematically alienated every one of America’s former allies?

“The coalition that was in place isn’t as strong as it used to be, It’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him [Saddam].”
~ George W. Bush, 2000-10-11, second presidential debate
Is this the same George W. Bush who thumbed his nose at the U.N. and systematically alienated every one of America’s former allies?

“We should be able to punish corporate leaders who are convicted of abusing their powers. By banning them from ever serving again as officers or directors of a publicly held corporation.”
~ George W. Bush
Bush’s crew contain stock fraud con artists including himself, Dick Cheney, Larry Thompson and Thomas White.

“The more money they have in their more pockets — in their pockets, the more likely it is that somebody will find work.”
~ George W. Bush
Source: Federal Document Clearing House, George W. Bush Delivers Remarks to the GOP Resort from the Greenbriar Resort, 2003-02-09
Republicans believe starvation in the best way to motivate people to find jobs.

“If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble… I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be.”
~ George W. Bush
from the Presidential Debate, 2000-10-12

“We should be able to punish corporate leaders who are convicted of abusing their powers. By banning them from ever serving again as officers or directors of a publicly held corporation.”
~ George W. Bush
Bush Jr has been arrested 3 times for different offences, and only got off with $800,000 oil shares trading charge when the investigator, appointed by his father said there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

I really don't get what your vexed, or frustrated about DBK.

You called trans fats a "public health threat."

That's NOT the case. A "public health threat" is something one individual does or contracts that can directly impact OTHERS.

Tobacco use, trans fats and various sweeteners may very well be generally bad for one's health, BUT they ONLY impact people on an individual level.

AIDs, Ebola, TB and terrorism are all things that one person can do/contract that directly impact others, while drinking alcohol to excess, chewing or smoking tobacco products and eating excess fats, either trans fats OR saturated fats DOES NOT directly impact anyone else.

And as I said, if you believe that Caveat Emptor - free people making free decisions for themselves is NOT "the essence of freedom/Liberty, than you really DON'T understand what freedom is.

That's a fact, NOT something I said to anger you.

Is this Bailey 1 or 2, the "new Bailey" or "old Bailey?" I can't keep track.

The LAWS that protect individuals, are the very same laws that brought those corporations (Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, Tyco, etc) that began defrauding investors in the mid-1990s to justice, in 2001.

ALL those scandals flourished under Bill Clinton (Ron Brown was working on behalf of Enron when killed over the Balkans) and were brought to justice by the current administration.

WE MUST give credit where it's due, no matter whether its comfortable for us to do so, or not.

And Barely, YOU ARE "buying from China" EVERY time you buy from a Walmart or other major American retailer today!

As I said, the current administration is a "mixed bag." GREAT on the WoT, excellent on the economy, very poor on illegal immigration and on excessive spending (NCLBA & the prescription drug boondoggle, etc).

I really DON'T get your statement; "Is this the same George W. Bush who thumbed his nose at the U.N. and systematically alienated every one of America’s former allies?" (BH)

"Alienated EVERY ONE of America's former allies?"

England? Australia?? Japan???

Italy, Poland, Albania, Canada, Turkey, Spain...?

Chirac's France?

Well, yes, we alienated the Chirac government! But that government was NEVER an "allie of America's."

Schroeder's Germany?

OK, we alienated them too, but Schroeder was never an "allie of America's" either.

Ironically enough, BOTH those governments have been democratically replaced by the French and German people respectively, with far more "pro-American" governments (Sarkozy & Merckel).

Putin hasn't been "alienated" either. He's been engaged in many talks with the U.S. and recently stayed with the Bush's in Kennebunkport.

You seem to misunderstand what's going on Barely!

YES, the Bush administration has badly mishandled post-Saddam Iraq.

They DID NOT, however, engage in an "illegal war," nor "alienate the rest of the world," etc., etc.

If you'd said "This administration badly mismanaged post-Saddam Iraq, YOU'D have been right, just as if you'd said, "Enron was guilty of defrauding investors," you'd have been right....but instead you implied Enron's sale of eletricity to California was somehow illegal. Just as, instead of blaming the Bush administration for mismanaging post-Saddam Iraq, you claimed a number of things that simply weren't true.

Why do you continue to do that?

"That's NOT the case. A "public health threat" is something one individual does or contracts that can directly impact OTHERS."

There ya go! Define the argument away. By fiat of our con-man wannabe bloviator, the definition of a public health threat has been declared.

According to legitimate medical studies published in peer-reviewed journals, banning trans fats would prevent tens of thousands of heart attacks per year. But fortunately we have the con-man to tell us that something that causes tens of thousands of heart attacks a year is not a public health threat. Argument over. Everyone go home. The power of the rhetorician to twist reality prevails. All you folks with coronary heart disease can rest easy now. Next the con-man wannabe will define your disease as a health enhancing attribute and then you won't be able to collect on your insurance claim.

It's not a bug, you see. It's a feature.

Again DBK, Bloomberg's ham-handed ban (1) came a full 2 YEARS after many food makers began eliminating trans fats from their products and (2) doesn't eliminate all trans fats, as some are needed to maintain the consistency and shape of many foods.

Saturated fats also raise LDL levels and saturated fats are 15% of the average diet, as opposed to 2% for trans fats.

I don't want the government telling people not to drink alcohol, not to smoke or chew tobacco, not to eat sweets etc.

Those are ALL personal choices and since some people can do all those "potentially bad things" without many negative health effects, they should remain personal choices....they MUST remain personal choices within a free society.

Hell corn sweeteners are among the worst things for one's health. Even many poorer countries like Mexico ban them. They are far more dangerous than natural sugars because 100% of the corn syrup is absorbed into the blood, as opposed to about 50% of the sugar from a sugar-based drink or sweet.

That's terrible, BUT it does NOT make corn sweetners a "public health threat." If you drink four Cokes a day, it has no direct impact on anyone else.

And again, at the risk of illiciting more of your "righteous indignation," you not only seem to misunderstand the term "freedom" (self-ownership and personal responsibility), but "con man," as well.

If I recall, I mentioned that I'm looking into going in partners in a hydrocarbon (oils, fuels, etc) recovery business and my prospective partner has considered selling what he calls "actual carbon offsets" (investments in a REAL environmental service company), as opposed to what Al Gore has apparently done - bought stock in a company he helped found and calling those stock purchases "carbon offsets."

Not to put too fine a point on this, but your asserting that my CONSIDERATION of a partnership makes me a "wannabe con man," would seem to indicate that you've come to see Al Gore and others like him, who've already actually allegedly used "fictitious carbon offsets" to be an "actual can man."

DBK,
Of course and you are right. Trans fat is a (relatively recently identified)public threat that kills thousands yearly. What amazes me, is that people like the one your refer to (JMK), are completely ignorant of basic facts.

Like when JMK writes:

"Tobacco use, trans fats and various sweeteners may very well be generally bad for one's health, BUT they ONLY impact people on an individual level."

That shows complete ignorance of the very very basics. I think he is the only man on earth (if he truly resides on this planet) who is not aware that second hand smoking has serious consequences and also kills thousands. Unbelievable!

"I think he is the only man on earth (if he truly resides on this planet) who is not aware that second hand smoking has serious consequences and also kills thousands. Unbelievable!" (BW)


I hope this doesn't seem mean, but I do live for moments like these Blue!

Actually, there is NO actual "science" behind the "second-hand smoke" crusade.

In fact, up until a few years ago, zealots had ads claiming "Second-hand smoke is actually WORSE than direct smoke."

Sadly, those ads and that claim died when they were asked a simple question, "How can twice filtered second-hand smoke (filtered once on the cig and again in the smoker's lungs, be worse than direct smoke?"

That claim is bullshit, because, like many such "scientific causes," there is NO science that backs it up!

Let me quote from another "unbeliever," Dr. Michael Fitzgerald; In 1988, the Froggat Committee, an independent scientific committee on smoking and health, estimated that passive smoking caused an increased risk of lung cancer of between 10 and 30 per cent and recommended restrictions on smoking in workplaces and in public (9). The case against passive smoking gathered momentum through the 1990s. In 1997 meta-analyses confirmed increased risks of lung cancer (24 per cent) and coronary heart disease (23 per cent). A re-analysis of the same studies three years later acknowledged a 'modest degree of publication bias' (a result of the fact that studies which reveal no increased risk are less likely to be published) and adjusted the excess risk of lung cancer down from 24 per cent to 15 per cent.

"Despite the growing medical (and political) consensus about the dangers of passive smoking, the issue has remained controversial. The Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson, while accepting the plausibility of the lung cancer link and the fact that numerous studies appear to show a statistically significant increase in risk, has questioned its epidemiological significance. He offered estimates of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from various environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23)...environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) (2).

"By contrast, in a population which consumes Japanese seafood (which contains Arsenic) this will cause 12 cases of cancer, where there are traces of natural Arsenic in drinking water, this will cause five cases; eating mushrooms will cause three cases. In other words, the risk of ETS is comparable with that of environmental agents that are generally regarded as an insignificant threat to health.

"Perhaps the most fundamental defect of the presentation of the risk of passive smoking is the failure to distinguish between relative and absolute risk. In a critical commentary, the Australian medical research scientist Raymond Johnstone noted that the annual death rate from lung cancer among the non-smoking wives of non-smoking men is around six per 100,000, whereas among the non-smoking wives of smoking men the corresponding figure is eight per 100,000. Now this may be reported as an increased(relative) risk of 33 per cent. Yet in absolute terms it amounts to an absolute (or exposure) risk of one in 50,000, which is, for practical purposes, negligible."

FROM: We Have Ways of Making You Stop Smoking

Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA7A4.htm

A fascinating article for anyone with any curiosity about the facts and with an open mind.

In it, Dr. Fitzgerald chronicles the parallels and differences between Nazi Germany's 'war on cancer' and New Labour's crusade against tobacco.

Well, Blue Wind, he may not misunderstand. He may just simply be lying, as is the case with con men and con men wannabes.

Like here, where he lies about what he wrote previously:
"If I recall, I mentioned that I'm looking into going in partners in a hydrocarbon (oils, fuels, etc) recovery business and my prospective partner has considered selling what he calls "actual carbon offsets" (investments in a REAL environmental service company), as opposed to what Al Gore has apparently done - bought stock in a company he helped found and calling those stock purchases "carbon offsets.""

Actually, he called carbon offsets a con game and said he wanted in on it. Wanting in on a con game sounds like wanting to be a con man to me, but then so is playing word games to restructure reality to your personal wishes. Shorter version: JMK is full of crap.

As you would expect from someone who expressed his admiration for a con game and his desire to participate in the con. I suggest people read JMK's comments with that in mind so they can avoid becoming his marks.

Again, JMK talks out of his ass, which is also where his brain resides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.

In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[52] Some studies make the claim that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, such as the Helena Study,[53] suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. The Helena Study claims that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent.[54] Parents who smoke appear to be a risk factor for children and babies and are associated with low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.[55]

In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[56][57]
Additionally, studies assessing passive smoking without looking at the partners of smokers have found that high overall exposure to passive smoking is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[58]

The National Asthma Council of Australia[59] cites studies showing that: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:

Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.

This whole "trans fat thing" has really raised a lot of rancor around here and as I'm always wont to do, I'd like to seek out some common ground here.

Seriously, this COULD work, if we all come into it with an open mind.

OK, I ruffled DBK's and BW's feathers (Barely's are always ruffled) by defending every American's "right to choose," which is, at it's essence "the right of individuals to make bad decisions for themselves," at least so long as those decisions don't directly and negatively impact others.

That IS the crux of MY argument here.

Those who oppose that argument, oppose the basic "right to choose," or our basic right, as free people to "make bad decisions for ourselves."

OK, well it occurred to me that on issues of security and law enforcement we often (always?) find ourselves on opposite ends.

Yes, I defend my pro-intrusive security stance on the grounds that both military and police powers are enumerated in the constitution, while the powers to "equalize people economically," and to "micromanage individual lives" is NOT.

The other day, there was a horrific police shooting in Brooklyn, NY, leaving one cop clinging to life with two .45 shells in his skull.

While the usual dolts argue about "gun control," the ACLU upped the ante by railing against "SECURITY CAMERAS!"

Seems that the images of the three thugs were caught on a Day Care Center's security cam and the ACLU doesn't like that at all.

Worse still, one of the shooter's frantic calls to friends and associates to help get him out of the state was caught inadvertently in a police wiretap investigating another crime - the ACLU likes THAT even less.

Look, in my view, we need more security in today's world and that unfortunately often means more intrusive police powers.

Now, for me, it's really hard to swallow that reality, but I've seen that up close....I CAN understand Barry having an even bigger problem with it as he's a consistent Libertarian, BUT, DBK?...BW??...BH???

Come ON! You're all willing to let government tell you what you can and cannot eat, so long as they couch it terms of a "public health threat," so how can you be opposed to the government protecting you from an even bigger, far more pervasive, not to mention REAL "public health threat" - TERRORISM?

I have a compromise, How about I accept the efficacy of smoking and trans fat bans, SO LONG AS YOU all accept the efficacy of more intrusive anti-terror tactics - more surveillance cameras on our streets, easier access to wiretaps, etc., etc.?

Think about it! I'M the one making the concession here, as I'M the one accepting something that I believe is not constitutionally mandated (the government denying free people the right to make bad personal choices), while you'd merely be accepting an expansion of things that ARE indeed constitutionally mandated - Military and Police powers?

Fair deal?

"Actually, he called carbon offsets a con game and said he wanted in on it." (DBK)


That's not precise DBK, and that's also why it's not true.

I SAID "carbon offsets" as currently constituted (right now, they are whatever some folks claim they are) are indeed "SCAMS," I used the word "scam," not "con"...they are indeed two different things.

A "bait & switch" (advertising one item and only having a similar, more expensive item in stock) is a SCAM, it's not a CON (like offering to split the proceeds of a found wallet with an "honest passerby" and absconding with that stranger's "good faith money")...the above SCAM was, for a long time, legal, the CON is NOT.

Al Gore has allegedly bought stock in an investment company he helped found and calls those stock purchases "carbon offsets."

Now that's a SCAM, as there's currently NO LAW against that, but it SHOULD be an illegal CON JOB, in my view and that of many others.

I never endorsed something so crass as that.

I merely admitted that I'm considering partnering with another fellow in a petroleum (fuel/oil) recycling business (very legitimate) and indeed an actual "environmental service company."

New start-ups always require infusions of cash and my associate noted that under existing laws WE COULD sell "credits" in our business as "carbon offsets," of course, we may have to sell actual "shares," in that business and THAT'S a lot less appealing an option.

Now again, the entire idea of "carbon ofsets" is enviro-voodoo, as there's no SUCH THING!

BUT look at my case as opposed to Gore's. He buys stock in an INVESTMENT company he helped found and calls those shares "carbon offsets," while I am looking into partnering in a legitimate environmental services company and merely CONSIDERED offering (none have been offered nor sold) "carbon offsets" in a REAL environmental services company!

And YOU haven't the stomach to (1) admit you were wrong in defending Al Gore and (2) criticize a guy (GORE) actually involved in what appears to be a real SCAM, while you excoriate me, for daring to aspire to partner in a legit environmental service business, and perhaps offer "carbon offsets" that actually are linked to SOME actual environmental benefit.

Can you see how twisted that is?

I believe you'll wholeheartedly agree that, "Good intentions (ie. Al Gore) don't mean a damned thing (Hitler & Stalin, as they say, had "good plenty of intentions"), results are the ONLY thing that count."

I'm all about results, DBK. What would you rather invest in as a "carbon offset" a "socially conscious investment company" founded by the shady Al Gore, or an actual environmental service company that actually DOES some good and gets results?

JMK,
The fact that you insist that second-hand smoke is harmless and you quote some bizzare individual who argues for that is super-weird. These are facts that the whole civilized world knows and is quoted in all scientific sources, but for you such things dont exist. The only evidence you see is the bizzare views of an obscure "scientist" that ignores all facts.

Things like that make me wonder if you are from another galaxy (no just another planet). Unless, of course, DBK is right.

Hey, just because JMK disagrees with JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, and every single unbiased, revered, and reliable source of scientific information regarding second-hand smoke doesn't mean he is an idiot. I mean, using all those lies the Tobacco Industry paid to manufacture while they continued to murder people (as they do today) with their product is very clever.

Don't get mad at JMK. He is a Corporatist. For god knows what reason, this unionized fireman thinks that all-powerful corporations bribing our government and writing laws that allow them to murder and steal from men, women, and children is the best way to go.

I guess he smokes. To him, blowing smoke in your face and making you inhale carcinogens is part of his inalienable right to pursue happiness, even while obstructing yours.

BW, when is "sicence established?"

It's NEVER established.

I believe the last bit of "established science" was undone by Copernicus.

There was indeed 99.999% consensus that the sun, moon and stars revolved around a flat earth.

Without question, many of those scientists who were defenders of this "consensus" had much stronger academic and "scientific" credentials then did Copernicus.

No one argues that now....and even Copernicus didn't argue against that back then.

All Copernicus had on his side was skepticism, an open mind and a belief in empiricism.

As I've said even the link between smoking and cancer is not absolute.

NOT everyone who smokes cigarettes will get lung cancer.

In fact many who smoke a pack a day or more DO NOT suffer lung ailments.

So is there a direct link or not?

The answer is simply that smoking cigarettes is just one of many, many "risk factors" for various cancers and other ailments.

Yours amd my individual risks DEPEND...mainly upon our genetic make-up.

You may ask, "Would you take that extra risk?"

That's a question that ONLY each individual can answer.

There is far more of a link between foods (again the kinds of foods vary according to each person's genetics - what may trigger a cancer in me, may not effect you and vice versa)...THAT'S the simplest way I can explain "risk factors" as "links to cancer."

I hope that's helpful.

But I must insist that you NOT ignore my fair deal;

"OK, I ruffled DBK's and BW's feathers (Barely's are always ruffled) by defending every American's "right to choose," which is, at it's essence "the right of individuals to make bad decisions for themselves," at least so long as those decisions don't directly and negatively impact others.

"That IS the crux of MY argument here.

Those who oppose that argument, oppose the basic "right to choose," or our basic right, as free people to "make bad decisions for ourselves."

OK, well it occurred to me that on issues of security and law enforcement we often (always?) find ourselves on opposite ends.

Yes, I defend my pro-intrusive security stance on the grounds that both military and police powers are enumerated in the constitution, while the powers to "equalize people economically," and to "micromanage individual lives" is NOT.

The other day, there was a horrific police shooting in Brooklyn, NY, leaving one cop clinging to life with two .45 shells in his skull.

While the usual dolts argue about "gun control," the ACLU upped the ante by railing against "SECURITY CAMERAS!"

Seems that the images of the three thugs were caught on a Day Care Center's security cam and the ACLU doesn't like that at all.

Worse still, one of the shooter's frantic calls to friends and associates to help get him out of the state was caught inadvertently in a police wiretap investigating another crime and passed onto the cop shooting investigators - the ACLU likes THAT even less.

Look, in my view, we need more security in today's world and that unfortunately often means more intrusive police powers.

Now, for me, it's really hard to swallow that reality, but I've seen that up close....I CAN understand Barry having an even bigger problem with it as he's a consistent Libertarian, BUT, DBK?...BW??...BH???

Come ON! You're all willing to let government tell you what you can and cannot eat, so long as they couch it terms of a "public health threat," so how can you be opposed to the government protecting you from an even bigger, far more pervasive, not to mention REAL "public health threat" - TERRORISM?

I have a compromise, How about I accept the efficacy of smoking and trans fat bans, SO LONG AS YOU all accept the efficacy of more intrusive anti-terror tactics - more surveillance cameras on our streets, easier access to wiretaps, etc., etc.?

Think about it! I'M the one making the concession here, as I'M the one accepting something that I believe is not constitutionally mandated (the government denying free people the right to make bad personal choices), while you'd merely be accepting an expansion of things that ARE indeed constitutionally mandated - Military and Police powers?

Fair deal?

I guess JMK smokes. He is hoping he can keep smoking and not die like my cousin did when she was 41 years old, or my wife's uncle when he was 43 (two years after he stopped smoking). Ah well, I'm sure JMK doesn't have three kids like my wife's uncle, who watched him die when they were about 10 years old.

They both smoked, and they both died of lung cancer. Nobody else in either family ever got any cancer before 75 or 80 years old.

Hmmm, I wonder if there is any connection? Let me think, are there any other heavy smokers in our families? Well, there was my Uncle. He smoked a lot, and he didn't get cancer. He got emphysema. Of course that was after his non-smoker wife died of lung cancer. I wonder why she died of lung cancer? She didn't smoke. Hey, do you think that sitting in their little house with my Uncle, watching TV with him while HE smoked all evening for thirty years or so, do you think ... nah.

Funny thing is, nobody else got cancer. Only the smokers and my aunt, wife of the heaviest smoker of all (who only got emphysema and carries around an oxygen tank with him) got cancer.

JMK is right: some rare individuals do not get lung cancer, even if they do get emphysema eventually.

I have also heard that some people are not adversely effected by certain narcotics. So all narcotics should be legal. Obviously prostitution should be legal, as it doesn't hurt anyone. Gay prostitution too, just in case someone wants to try it out. We do have a right to these freedoms, even if some of them carry risks.

Overall, I just have to agree with JMK: if something will only kill you, or maybe members of your family, though rarely, then these are things that the government should stay out of completely. The drugs we take, buying sex, gambling as much as we like on anything, drag racing our cars, duels with pistol or longswords, voluntary medical experimentation, human cloning, abortions of course ...

I couldn't agree more. Let's get the government out of our lives!

"As I've said even the link between smoking and cancer is not absolute."

JMK,
You embarass yourself by making statements like that. Go and read and read again. Of course not anyone who smokes gets cancer. There are genetic reasons that make people less or more susceptible, like anything else. BUT essentially all that get lung cancer ARE or WERE smokers. Non-smokers, rarely if ever get lung cancer. Get it? Read it again and again if you have to.

The link between smoking and lung cancer is more than absolute. It is established and accepted by the Tobacco companies as well. That's why they put disclaimers that smoking causes cancer on cigarette packs. You can support far right extremists, and even fascists, if you want. But when you make statements like the ones you did above, you simply embarass yourself.

An "absolute link" is a one to one causation BW.

I've personally know over a dozen people who smoked over a pack of cigarettes per day for all their adult lives, without suffering any lung disorders (emphysema, lung cancer, etc)....I believe that that alone proves that there is no "absolute" or one-to-one causal link between smoking and lung cancer.

In fact, ANY researcher will tell you that.

I've been fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to have spent a good amount of time at Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital (SKM). My Dad was treated there until his death, and over twenty firefighters I've worked with also spent time there before (all but three of them) succumbed to various cancers.

I'm a pretty inquisitve and somewhat engaging a fellow and I've spoken to many oncologists at SKM and they'll all tell you exactly what I told you about the various cancer risks - "The answer is simply that smoking cigarettes is just one of many, many "risk factors" for various cancers and other ailments.

"Yours amd my individual risks DEPEND...mainly upon our genetic make-up.

"There is far more of a link between foods (again the kinds of foods vary according to each person's genetics - what may trigger a cancer in me, may not effect you and vice versa)...THAT'S the simplest way I can explain "risk factors" as "links to cancer."

They'll also tell you that environmental factors are, by far, the largest risk factor, followed by diet, then smoking, other lifestyle factors, and finally sunshine (skin cancer).

As I said above, smoking AND chewing tobacco ARE indeed heavy "risk factors" for various kinds of cancers and other ailments, but there is NO "absolute" or one-to-one causal link between ANY of the above "risk factors" and ANY cancer.

THAT is, quite simply put, a fact.

"Gay prostitution too, just in case someone wants to try it out. We do have a right to these freedoms, even if some of them carry risks." (BH)


Barney Frank's partner operated a gay brothel from the basement of his MA home.

I know a LOT of cops and according to them, prostitution has been treated the same - there's NEVER been more emphasis on "gay prostitution."

I have no reason to doubt these guys. Now maybe you're not implying that "gay prostitution" has been treated more severely than any other form...the cops say that's not the case.

And Barely (if this IS the actual you), government SHOULD stay out of personal choices, BUT employers certainly do have a right to force any number of terms on their employees.

Employers can rightfully fire employees for things on their Facebook or MySpace accounts that demonstrate poor judgment on the part of that employee. It's been done, it's accepted as legal and it's also "right and just."

John Rocker, Bob Grant and many, many others have found out that public figures and "on-air" employees can be fired for some of the things they say.

Employers can fire people for drinking and drug abuse (both on and off the job) - the NYPD and FDNY both have a "Zero Tolerance" policy regarding drugs. You will be fired for a first offense. There is random drug testing on both jobs and guys have been fired for drugs being in their system from off-duty "recreational use."

Again, that's been court tested and it's legal, "right & just."

As for me, I've never smoked Barely....but I'll defend anyone else's RIGHT to smoke if they want to.

Moreover, apparently, my far more extensive anecdotal evidence trumps your own.

Like I said, I've known dozens of people who've smoked at least a pack a day for all their adult lives without ever suffering any lung ailments, and all living into their seventies and above. I've klnown many others who've died very early, from various cancers, who smoked, drank and engaged in any number of other "high risk" activities.

The great John Goss (30 years in E-35) was a heavy smoker who died five years after retiring from the FDNY at 67 years of age - from throat cancer.

He smoked, and he also fought fires from 1962 to 1993, during much of that time, they fought fires without wearing SCBAs (air masks). He was also an artist, he painted a number of awesome fire scenes, some of which hang in the Fire Museum and the Fire Academy.

In John's case was it the smoking, the firefighting sans SCBA, or the various paints, thinners, etc. that artists like him regularly come in contact with?

That's the case with almost ALL cancer cases. There are too many "risk factors" to make an actual causal determination.

There are a host of "risk factors" for all sorts of cancers and it's an individual responsibility for each of us to limit as best we can.

Government, in general, SHOULD NOT be making individual choices for us.

So long as tobacco is legal, it should not be barred by local governments, ditto various sweeteners, various fats, etc.

If the government wished to outlaw tobacco, that would be something else again...but banning private use of products that are publically available/legal is not "protecting the public," it's micromanaging individual lives.

JMK,
Why do you have this need to completely distort reality to make a silly point? Your arguments above are ridiculous. You argue that many risk factors are equally responsible for causing lung cancer and that is, simply, ridiculous. Smoking is by far the highest risk factor for lung cancer. Do you smoke? If so, just try to quit.

Well, Bailey, if you deny the link between smoking and cancer, the cancer fairy can't come get you. It's like keeping your eyes closed when something bad happens. It can't happen to you if you don't see it, see?

I marvel at the idiocy of "Caveat emptor is the essence of freedom". If that isn't a con man wannabe's statement, nothing is. In other words, fraud should not be regulated by anyone nor prevented by anyone. Instead, it's your tough luck if you get defrauded. Caveat emptor is protective of the right to defraud, not the safety of the consumer. In JMK's view, government is there to permit fraud and even protect it, not to protect honest citizens. JMK's government protects the criminal from unwarranted government intrusion into the criminal's freedom to perpetrate fraud. At least he's consistent.

I also marvel at the ignorance of history. The JMKs of the world believe that regulatory agencies leaped full-grown from the head of the state without any cause; a kind of Quantum Regulatum. Caveat emptor was working perfectly for everyone before that pesky Teddy Roosevelt came along, the dirty bastard.

Again, Blue, you're wrong.

Your view that "the science is settled" proves that.

Science, by its very nature is NEVER settled. I suppose that's why recently, "the father of Climatology" declared Global Warming "a bunch of hooey." SEE: http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/06/father-of-climatology-calls-global.html

Smoking is indeed ONE among many "risk factors" for lung cancer and emphysema and NOT "the highest risk factor," as "environmental factors." In fact, that's why almost 40% of those who contract lung cancer don't smoke.

Heated smoke is without question more toxic and reactive than "cold smoke." And filtered smoke is without question far less toxic then non-filtered smoke. That's the cause of the underlying skepticism over "Second-hand smoke" - it's TWICE filtered and it's cold smoke.

Actually I, myself, have NEVER smoked, but I DID sell cigarettes (as a youth) while working in my grandfather's store...tobacco products were a big seller back then. I've always been very appreciative of the fact that so many good people bought things like that, along with meats, poultry (he was a butcher), sweets, etc., because it enabled "Poppa" to maintain two homes (one on Staten Island and another on a lake out in northwest NJ) amd drive nice cars - when I was a kid, he had a mint green Chrysler Imperial, with leather seats lined with mink. He paid extra to have the standard AC taken out, because my grandmother complained of arthritis. I never understood why he just didn't just keep the AC off when she rode with him.

Still, I saw that his lifestyle (and he was a really GREAT guy) was maintained by the fact that people, with the freedom to choose, could often be counted on to make bad, or impulsive choices/decisions for themselves.

Now me, though I've never smoked, BUT I HAVE gone to well over 3,000 (best est appx 3400) fires (at least 2,000 (probably 2200) of them on First Alarm Units) and I've conducted roof operations "mask-free" and overhauled fire apartments "mask-free" for over nineteen years.

A married couple, Dr. Roderick and Deborah Wallace have been studying NY firefighters for years. They're great people. I have Deborah's book In the Mouth of the Dragon (an excellent book). They studied the NYC Telephone Company fire, which occurred back in 1975 and how the city secretly studied the firemen who contracted various cancers and died in its wake, while never acknowledging that the buring PCBs in that fire were linked, in any way, to those cancers. In fact, the City of NY fought every one of those claims by those firefighters for disablities related to that fire.

The government (in that case NYC's government) acted exactly the same way we'd expect ANY organization, corporate or governmental to act. They put the fiscal interests of the organization FIRST. Which is what corporate executives AND elected official are BOTH paid to do!

At any rate the Wallace's claim that operating at a fire without benefit of a SCBA (as I and many others have long done) is "equivalent to smoking 3,000 cigarettes"...I think that's an exaggeration on their parts, as they can't tell me exactly how they made that equivalency.

So I'm still skeptical, but you do the math - 3000 X say 3400 = OVER 10 MILLION cigarettes!

Still, I've had blood gases done and had CO levels that were then ABOVE what were supposed to be lethal levels a few times and have had too many "smoke headaches" to count. Those "smoke headaches" used to be thought to be due to taking in a lot of CO, but in recent years they've attributed them to HCN (hydrogen cyanide), a very common byproduct of the combustion of many plastics and polymers.

So far, 22 years on the FDNY (19 in the South Bronx) and no ill effects, save for a couple knee surgeries and some arthritis due to the poundings.

Do I doubt that many of the byproducts of combustion are carcinogenic?

Not at all.

In fact, they are probably the ONLY risk factor that's "higher" than even "environmental factors," BUT as I'm sure all those oncologists I've spoken to would attest, "There is NO "absolute" or ONE-to-ONE causal link between ANY "risk factor" and ANY cancer."

I suppose that's why I'm still alive and kicking, while many great guys, I've known and worked with (many in even better condition than I, at the time) have died far younger than I am now, from things like brain cancer, germ cell cancer, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, etc.

If there were an "absolute" link (a ONE-to-ONE causal effect) between smoking and lung cancer, then I'd support making that product ILLEGAL.

And the public official MOST to blame on that would be....LBJ, after all, it was during his administration that warning labels were first required, so the dangers were known.

The reason that tobacco products haven't been made illegal is because there has NEVER been proven a ONE-to-ONE causal link between smoking and lung cancer.

It remains ONE "risk factor" among many.

"if you deny the link between smoking and cancer (DBK)


"In other words, fraud should not be regulated by anyone nor prevented by anyone. Instead, it's your tough luck if you get defrauded." (DBK)


I have a very special treat!

If ANYONE can prove that I said....OK, even implied that fraud shouldn't be regulated....I'll make an announcement/confession on this board first.

On another board another poster claims I am NOT JMK (a firefighter from NYC), but Yehuda G, an epidemiologist from the CDC, using a real person as a veritable "sock-puppet....THAT is not 100% true.

I'd love nothing more than to delve into that misconception, BUT, let me have some fun before - AGAIN, show me where I implied either of those two non-sensical statements and I'll make any disclosures here.


Back to DBK, OK, you not only DON'T understand what FREEDOM is (it's LIBERTY - self-ownership and full personal reesponsibility....NOTHING MORE) and apparently you DON'T understand what Caveat Emptor ("Let the buyer beware") is either.

Caveat Emptor is "the freedom to CHOOSE or MAKE our own decisions." That is all it is.

Caveat Emptor DOES NOT imply that I have the right to CHOOSE to rape, plunder or defraud my clients.

Here's how it works.

Cigarettes are LEGAL.

So long as they are DBK should be able to buy cigarettes, light up and smoke to his heart's content and JMK should be allowed to sell said cigarettes to his heart's content.

But cigarettes are harmful in many ways!

So what?! So long as they're LEGAL then I can sell them and the people (including DBK) have the right to choose to buy them, or NOT.

Without THAT basic freedom to CHOOSE and "make bad decisions for ourselves," there are NO other freedoms worth fighting for.

If the government can restrict tobacco and trans fats, why not saturated fats...why not ban sweets, alcohol, etc???

If the government can do that "for our own good," WHY not restrict our "rights" to assemble peacefully to air our grievances? Why not monitor and regulate was can be said over the internet, or for that matter in ALL forms of communication?

ALL those "freedoms" are rooted in the "freedom to choose," - the freedom "to make good, bad, reckless and disatrous decisions for ourselves."

Is there an alternative to freedom?

YES, it's called "equality."

The argument in favor of "equality" goes, "Look, freedom directly harms those who are more reckless and irresponsible by foisting the full burden of those poor decisions upon themselves! Consider that younger people tend to be more reckless/impulsive than older, more mature people, renters more reckless than property owners, poorer, less educated and lower IQ people tend to bne more reckless than those who are better-off, better educated and smarter. HOW is THAT fair?! What we should do is to value people as human beings and equalizethem by distributing the burden of all the poor decisions made equally, so that no one is completely destroyed through something that is no fault of their own (is it the younger person's fault that he/she is young, the renter's fault that he rents, etc., etc.) and no one else should benefit (as so many of the well-off under freedom do) from the miscues of others. Freedom results in our valuing people by how much they have, equality values people according to their humanity."

As you can see, the argument in favor of "equality" is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT.

Distributing the "burdens of bad decisions equally" deliberately harms to most productive members of a society. In effect, it ROBS them of what is rightfully theirs, the right to help solve other people's problems (for profit) and to benefit from other people's poor decisions...

...Relatedly;

Back in 1997 a cousin of mine, who works in an investment firm and couldn’t go to the SEC with documents that were supposed to be kept private and confidential, docs that indicated outright fraud being conducted by a number of Arthur Andersen clients, sent copies of some of those docs to me to forward to the SEC.

I sent them, along with over a dozen letters to the Clinton era Justice Dept and had correspondences with numerous people at the DOJ over the next seventeen months. The upshot was that (1) they seemed more concerned with “where those documents came from” and (2) that this was “not a high priority item at this time.”

Our correspondence ended in late 1998.

Less than three years later, the Bush administration’s DOJ brought the executives of many of those scandal-scarred companies to justice and signed onto a landmark Sarbannes-Oxley Act that eliminated some of the conflicts that allowed for those kinds of scandals to flourish.

And, what was the other thing?...Oh yeah, in regards to, “if you deny the link between smoking and cancer,...I DON'T believe I EVER said, nor implied ANY such thing.

What I DID say was that there is no “absolute” (that’s ONE-to-ONE direct causal link) between smoking and lung cancer or ANY given risk factor and any given cancer. If there were, then LBJ was criminally negligent in not outlawing tobacco outright back in 1964.

In fact,...OK, I DID say that, but even that came from having dozens of oncologists at SKM over more than a decade explain how cancer works and how the various risk factors are related.

TWO statements...just two statements....if you can even show that they could mean what you claim via some sort of logical argument; for example, “Caveat Emptor is generally used in the retail arena and it not only espouses “freedom of choice,” but...”, of course, the argument MUST stand up to my own scrutiny, I’ll (1) concede that I am wrong on this entire argument, (2) elucidate upon the charge made about me elsewhere and (3) cease posting Conservative viewpoints...at least under the moniker JMK.

But you MUST first hold up your end.

I took two statements that you completely mischaracterized, because I DON’T think you’ll be able to meet the challenge laid out.

Ok,
JMK you convinced me. You are completely unable to understand and interpret very basic things. According to you, Hitler was a communist and smoking is only a secondary risk factor for lung cancer. You are living in the twilight zone. Unless, of course, DBK is right and the whole thing is some sort of a scheme.

Hitler was NOT a "communist," BW (I NEVER said, nor implied he was)...in FACT, he WAS a "socialist" who said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927)

I can only HOPE you'd agree that THAT speech with its allusions to "Capitalism as an exploiter of working people," and its "valuation of people by wealth and property, instead of responsibility and performance" is one of the sickest, most disgusting anti-Capitalist and thus anti-HUMAN things ever uttered by anyone.

Again, and this according to every oncologist I've ever spoken to (and that's over two dozen) "There is NO "absolute" or ONE-to-ONE causal link between ANY risk factor and ANY cancer." And yes, cancer is second to environmental factors as a "risk factor" for lung cancer...again, that's probably why almost 40% of those who contract lung cancer DON'T smoke. Sucking down smoke at a fire is probably even more of a risk factor than even environmental factors, and that seems to be borne out by cancer rates among firefighters.

I think your frustrated because you seem unable to make a credible argument to counter the things I argue in favor of.

Why don't you argue that "There IS a ONE-to-ONE causal link betweeen smoking and lung cancer?" GOf course that would require quotes and references, etc.

OR why DON'T you find a quote from Hitler renouncing Socialism....OR, argue instead, that "That quote means nothing, as it was made in the 1920s, when Hitler still may have been an ardent socialist. He changed and became a... by the mid-1930s...."

Actually, DON'T do that! That would be more challenging and it's easier to have fun with emotionalism and opinions than if you guys resorted to actual arguments.

"I think your frustrated because you seem unable to make a credible argument to counter the things I argue in favor of."

Yes, I dont live in the twilight zone and it is not easy to follow the thinking of twilightzone resident.

Now, go out and inhale some second hand smoke. It is refreshing and, according to your theories, good for you!

Wait a minute, I believe I need a ruling here.

In fact, I'll accept a ruling on this even from yourself; "Are you allowed to restate, or re-formulate my views?"

If so, I didn't know that, and I apologize for arrogantly having the nerve to post what I've mistakenly believed were "my views" without running them by you first.

I have it on good authority, that one of the conditions of my posting is that I refrain from re-formulating other people's views (yes, I've been guilty of that elsewhere and in the past, and have since been chastened and have turned over a new leaf).

That's why I'm a bit confused here, if you ARE indeed allowed to re-formulate my views and I'm not allowed to reformulate yours, well then I must, for whatever reason, be a second-class citizen, at least compared to yourself.

Does that seem fair to you?

Given that, I'm now actually a little afraid to go back and look at what I DID post.

Did I really say, "Second-hand smoke is good for people?"

I thought I said, "Tobacco use, trans fats and various sweeteners may very well all be generally bad for one's health, BUT they ONLY impact people on an individual level..."

"...Saturated fats also raise LDL levels and saturated fats are 15% of the average diet, as opposed to 2% for trans fats.

"I don't want the government telling people not to drink alcohol, not to smoke or chew tobacco, not to eat sweets etc.

"Those are ALL personal choices and since some people can do all those "potentially bad things" without many negative health effects, they should remain personal choices....they MUST remain personal choices within a free society.

"Hell corn sweeteners are among the worst things for one's health. Even many poorer countries like Mexico ban them. They are far more dangerous than natural sugars because 100% of the corn syrup is absorbed into the blood, as opposed to about 50% of the sugar from a sugar-based drink or sweet.

"That's terrible, BUT it does NOT make corn sweeteners a "public health threat." If you drink four Cokes a day, it has no direct impact on anyone else."

But, I'll accept your judgment here.

Which one did I actually say?

IF, you have the "right" (as a 1st Class citizen, to re-formulate my views) I'll also accept your "right" to say, "Look, your wrong on EVERYTHING, so just stop posting altogether."

If you can honestly say that I DIDN'T say what I (perhaps erroneously?) claim that I posted and instead said what you claim, "Second-hand smoke is good for people," then I've been operating under a misconception and I owe you an apology....but an apology is not nearly good enough, I know, so if the above is really the case, just cut and paste, "Yes, I have the right to reformulate your arguments any time I want JMK, and I want you to stop posting your vilely Conservative views," and I'll reluctantly slink away do exactly that.

See? I'm still under the (mistaken?) impression that I was the FIRST to use tobacco products and saturated fats as examples of things that "ARE BAD FOR OUR HEALTH," while arguing that the government SHOULD NOT be allowed to ban things that are individual health risks and are NOT illegal products.

If I am mistaken, please let me know why I'm mistaken ("I have the right to reformulate your views for you," is a good enough explanation, if THAT'S indeed the case) and I won't make that mistake again.

Ok, here is my ruling:

"You are wrong on everything, but you are excused due to apparent twilight zone interference. Therefore you may continue posting for now. However, your case may be re-evaluated in the future if others complain that reading your posts is as bad as second hand smoke exposure". So, essentially that is some sort of probation.

JMK is out of the running for good-guy-of-the-year wards...he wrote of his ol' grandpa:
"He paid extra to have the standard AC taken out, because my grandmother complained of arthritis. I never understood why he just didn't just keep the AC off when she rode with him."

For favoring his grandpa letting his poor grandmother sweat her ass off in a car, JMK has disqualified himself...

JMK is out of the running for good-guy-of-the-year wards...he wrote of his ol' grandpa:
"He paid extra to have the standard AC taken out, because my grandmother complained of arthritis. I never understood why he just didn't just keep the AC off when she rode with him."

For favoring his grandpa letting his poor grandmother sweat her ass off in a car, JMK has disqualified himself...

That's cold, man (no pun intended).

Let me simplify things BW, as that seems necessary here,

Throughout this thread, I've argued in FAVOR of the individual's right to choose.

Free people have a "God given right" (according to T Jefferson) to make good, bad, impulsive decisons OR "choose" for themselves.

Since tobacco has NOT been declared illegal, it probably should not be banned.

If you believe tobacco SHOULD be illegal, then LBJ is the worst villain of all time.

Same with trans fats. As I noted, food makers were reducing trans fats way back in 2004, TWO YEARS before the Bllomberg ban!

Again, trans fats are NOT an illegal product, so the government probably shouldn't be banning legal substances.

In effect, YOU and DBK have argued in favor of "a far more intrusive government restricting free individual's right to choose," when done "for their own good," (ie. to reduce individual health risks).

That makes it logically inconsistent for either of you to make an argument against "a far more intrusive government, restricting privacy rights," when done, "for their own good" (ie. to prevent terrorist attacks, catch pedophiles, etc.).

JMK, boring as usual.

Um, the words "In other words" kind of confuse you a lot, don't they JMK?

Seriously, now you've gone beyond being merely boring and have entered the world of dreadfully boring and frightfully stupid. I'm terribly sorry that you couldn't understand what I wrote. I kept it short and it lacked any twisty bits or confusing parts, so I can see how that might have made it go over your head.

"JMK is out of the running for good-guy-of-the-year awards..."

"...For favoring his grandpa letting his poor grandmother sweat her ass off in a car, JMK has disqualified himself... (Fred)


OK, did I miss something?

My grandmother asked him to have the AC taken out of that car, because she claimed AC worsened her arthritis...he paid almost what the AC would've cost as an extra to have it taken out.

I don't think I even took a stand on tha-

Oh yeah....I DID, I said, "I never understood why he just didn't just keep the AC off when she rode with him."

Where is that WRONG, or "cold?"

SHE wanted the AC taken out, he DID, of course, the same effect COULD'VE BEEN had by merely keeping the AC turned OFF when she rode with him.

Can this be used to prove that Conservatives rely more on logic, while Liberals tend to rely more on emotion?

Just asking...

It seems "logical" to avoid taking the AC out of the car by merely keeping it off when the person it bothered was in the car.

It seems "emotional" to argue that I was advocating "meanness" by offering an alternative that would've satisified my grandmother's desire to avoid AC, while saving my grandfather the money it cost to take out an item, he could've just kept off when it bothered my grandmother or any other passenger.

What I don't get is where we disagree DBK!

I said that Caveat Emptor ("Let the buyer beware") IS the essence of freedom, as it IS "the right of us free people to CHOOSE, or make our own decisions."

You've argued that "When it comes to any health risk, people shouldn't be free to choose, because government experts know best."

You've argued that not only does government have the right to ban "illicit substances" (ones IT deems illegal), like recreational drugs, etc., it also has the right to ban perfectly LEGAL substances, like tobacco, trans fats, etc.

I accepted what I termed a "fair deal" and a logically CONSISTENT stand for BOTH you and I when I said; "Come ON! You're...willing to let government tell you what you can and cannot eat, so long as they couch it terms of a "public health threat," so how can you be opposed to the government protecting you from an even bigger, far more pervasive, not to mention REAL public health threat - TERRORISM?

"I have a compromise, How about I accept the efficacy of smoking and trans fat bans, SO LONG AS YOU all accept the efficacy of more intrusive anti-terror tactics - more surveillance cameras on our streets, easier access to wiretaps, etc., etc.?

"Think about it! I'M the one making the concession here, as I'M the one accepting something that I believe is not constitutionally mandated (the government denying free people the right to make bad personal choices), while you'd merely be accepting an expansion of things that ARE indeed constitutionally mandated - Military and Police powers?"

I ONLY challenged you on TWO erroneous statements you made that mischaracterized what I've said; "if you deny the link between smoking and cancer (DBK)

(You must've mis-spoke, as I never anywhere implied that)

"In other words, fraud should not be regulated by anyone nor prevented by anyone. Instead, it's your tough luck if you get defrauded." (DBK)

(Again, apparently you must've mis-spoke AGAIN, as I carefully explained that Caveat Emptor is really a defense of the individual's "right to CHOOSE, or MAKE DECISIONS for themselves." It's NEVER been used to defend fraud...I accept that you mis-spoke.)

Now, how about AGREEING with me on a more intrusive government across the board?!

OK, the crack I was smoking must have addled my brain...I thought for some reason ol' gramps took out the standard AC and for some reason put in another type of AC system (why I though that, I don't know). Yes, your gramps should have just left the AC off when she was in the car. Mea culpa.

No good-guy award for you; but you remain in the running for....for...for, well, some kind of an award.

I apologize for being snarky Fred.

I appreciate your being fair-minded enough tp look at that post again.

Thanks!

No, I'm not going to win any "good guy of the year" awards (drats), but I am somewhat persistent.

JMK, you are as ignorant of science as you are of politics, history, the Constitution, and everything else.

If strict causality were the scientific standard we used to make decisions regarding safety and health, there would not be a single law on the books. I mean, you can't make a causal case against drinking and driving. No way. So drinking and driving, according to your pinheaded logic, should be legal, right?

More than that, since shooting someone in the head at point blank range does NOT cause the death of that person in every case, doing so should not be considered attempted murder. How could it be? We all know that not every point blank shot to the head is deadly.

The FDA would basically close shop. They couldn't prove that ANY drug "caused" any health problem. There is no way. Cigarettes don't "cause" cancer.

But let's have some fun. Let's apply your standard to your politics. Now you said that Keynesian policies "caused" a bad economy. LIAR! There is no way in hell you can prove a causal relationship between Keynesian economics and a bad economy. There is none. There have been plenty of economic good times under Keynesian policies!

"JMK, you are as ignorant of science as you are of politics, history, the Constitution, and everything else."

I think this summarizes the whole JMK issue accurately. The problem is that JMK fails to understand how obvious that is.

"If strict causality were the scientific standard we used to make decisions regarding safety and health, there would not be a single law on the books. I mean, you can't make a causal case against drinking and driving." (BH)


Actually it is YOU Barely, who is wrong on that. It's got to be very ego-deflating to try as hard as you do to be clever, only to wind up Barely Hanging.

There is INDEED a ONE-to-ONE causality between blood alcohol level and the impairment of motor skills, ergo the "DUI" threshholds.

Again, as far as lung cancer goes, cigarette smoking is but ONE among many "risk factors" for lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease.

There is almost certainly NOT a ONE-to-ONE causality between smoking and any of those things, since there are many, many other factors that cause all those things.

In fact, environmental factors are an even larger "risk factor" for lung cancer, so is firefighting without a SCBA, and there again, there are many people who live well into their 70s and beyond smoking a pack of cigarettes per day or more without lung cancer....ergo, there is NO "absolute" or ONE-to-ONE causal link between smoking and cancer.

I would accept/approve of making cigarettes ILLEGAL, just as I accept/approve of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine, etc., being ILLEGAL.

I'd even accept/approve of trans fats, saturated fats, alcohol (sorry Barry) and corn sweeteners being made ILLEGAL.

What I DON'T accept/approve of is the government banning substances that are perfectly LEGAL.

You, DBK and BW have ALL argued in favor of a MORE INTRUSIVE government when it comes to protecting individual health (via banning trans fats, tobacco, etc.), I DON'T like that because ALL of those products are still LEGAL....there are no laws AGAINST the sale of tobacco and trans fats.

As for me, I'd prefer the government just declare those "dangerous substances" ILLEGAL, as was done with "dangerous recreational drugs."

Now, as I said to DBK, "Come ON! You're...willing to let government tell you what you can and cannot eat, so long as they couch it terms of a "public health threat," so how can you be opposed to the government protecting you from an even bigger, far more pervasive, not to mention REAL public health threat - TERRORISM?

"I have a compromise, How about I accept the efficacy of smoking and trans fat bans, SO LONG AS YOU all accept the efficacy of more intrusive anti-terror tactics - more surveillance cameras on our streets, easier access to wiretaps, etc., etc.?

"Think about it! I'M the one making the concession here, as I'M the one accepting something that I believe is not constitutionally mandated (the government denying free people the right to make bad personal choices), while you'd merely be accepting an expansion of things that ARE indeed constitutionally mandated - Military and Police powers?"

"How about AGREEING with me on a more intrusive government across the board?!"

Again, it's OK that you don't understand economics....not an easy field to get into.

Keynesian policies failed miserably and entirely. The ill effects began right away in LBJ's star-crossed tenure, they began snow-balling during Nixon's ill-fated six years (exacerbated by Nixon resorting to those disastrous Wage & Price controls that actually reduced production of the goods and services the country needed), through Ford's thirty months, before finally imploding during the disatrous Carter Presidency; STAGFLATION - "The worst economy since the Great Depression." THAT (Stagflation) is what Keynesian policies wrought.

Supply-Side policies have brought us an UNPRECEDENTED quarter century+ of prosperity.

Even over the past few years! Look, 8.8 MILLION jobs created since 2003!!

Supply-Side policies have resulted in LOW INFLATION (generally under 3%), LOW INTEREST RATES (some of the lowest in history over the past few years), LOW UNEMPLOYMENT (currently 4.4% a near historic low), not to mention consistently rising personal incomes, rising productivity and a rollicking Dow.

We won't soon see a return to failed Keynesian policies any time soon, and if we did, it's still a "WIN" for Supply-Siders, a time to "sell short" and take profits and await the inevitable short-term fall of Keynesianism and a return to Supply-Side policies indicating "time to invest!"

"In fact, environmental factors are an even larger "risk factor" for lung cancer (than smoking),"

JMK,
You are making things up. Like your statement above. And the bad news is that such statements are bizzare, have no basis and are out of touch with reality. Enviromenral factors are a risk for lung cancer, but they dont come near smoking. Stop fabricating things and making false statements.

No JMK, you are wrong. You are so clearly and easily wrong it is laughable.

The burden is YOURS under your causal rules PROVE that EVERY time ANY person drinks alcohol they WILL get into an accident or kill someone, EVERY TIME.

See how that works? If you can't prove this, then you have not established the scientific causal relationship between drinking alcohol and hazardous driving. My theory is that drinking does NOT cause accident (although it may be a risk factor). I think that bad drivers like to drink.

Where is the study that proves me wrong?

I hate to admit it, but back when I was about 20, when DUI was no more than a ticket, I drove drunk dozens of times. I never once had an accident.

How in the hell can you say driving drunk has a causal relationship to impairment when I drove home safely all those nights, drunk off my ass?

It is a well known fact that some people are NOT impaired by drinking alcohol, and many people can drink several times the legal amount and still drive much better than some blue-haired senior. You are just flat wrong. There is NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between drinking and impaired driving.

Sure, it might be a risk factor. It might even effect a lot of people. But I am so, so very sorry, fool, but there is absolutely no "drink six beer" to "have a wreck" one-to-one relationship. There is no "drink six beers" to "driving impairment" one-to-one relationship.

There isn't, and you know it. MOST people who consume alcohol do show slowed reaction time that can lead to accidents, just like MOST people who smoke show signs of the cellular damage that can lead to cancer.

They are EXACTLY the same, so pick one side or the other, jackass.

Oh, and as for your "Supply Side" bullshit, there are at least TEN THOUSAND other explanations for why things just happened to go better (at least according to you) under those economic policies.

It could have had absolutely nothing to do with any economic policy. It could have just been the acceleration of technology. It could have been America's military power, or the fall of the Soviet Union, or countless other factors.

You are utterly retarded if you think you have even come within a million light years of proving a CAUSAL relationship between "Supply Side" economics and a thriving economy.

In fact, the recessions *DURING* your beloved "Supply Side" renaissance PROVES that there is no causal relationship between that economic policy and stable prosperity.

"You are making things up." (BW)


Once again, THIS is NOT "made up;" "The Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson, while accepting the plausibility of the lung cancer link (to second-hand smoke) and the fact that numerous studies appear to show a statistically significant increase in risk, has questioned its epidemiological significance. He offered estimates of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from various environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23)...environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) (2).

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA7A4.htm


One of the oncologists I've spoken to many times, sent me this a couple of hours ago, after I emailed him, "Well, from what you've sent me, you’ve over-simplified things somewhat, but you’re a layman, so that’s to be expected, I guess. I can only hope I won't be guilty of the same thing in responding to you.

"All cancers develop because of genetic alterations of one kind or another. An alteration is a change or mutation in the physical structure of a gene that interferes with the gene’s normal functions.

"Some alterations that increase the risk of cancer are present at birth in the genes of all cells in the body, including the reproductive cells. These alterations are called germline alterations and can be passed from parent to child. This type of alteration is known as an inherited susceptibility and is uncommon as a cause of cancer.

"Most cancers are not due to an inherited susceptibility but result from genetic changes that
occur during one’s lifetime within the cells of a particular organ. These genetic changes are
called somatic alterations. Environmental factors, dietary factors, behavioral factors (ie. smoking and sun worship) can all result in these genetic changes, or somatic alterations.

"While all environmental factors combined (exposure to UV rays, various pollutants, etc.) are probably the primary risk factor for cancer, smoking is a major risk factor, perhaps one of biggest risk factors for any single activity, OK, probably not as high as “firefighting without respiratory protection,” but few, if any things I can think of off-hand, would be.

"While the jury is still out on what level of risk factor second-hand smoke poses, it is certainly viewed as a significant health risk by most researchers. The Swedish study you’ve referred to has environmental factors as the leading risk factor for cancer, and while that’s almost certainly true, his putting diet over smoking as a risk factor is a little more controversial from my perspective. I tend to see the risk factor posed by both those things (diet and smoking) as very close, much closer than the 135/100,000 to 68/100,000 that your Robert Nilsson states.

"I'd like to see those studies he claims to reference.

"Risk factors are just that “risk factors.” There are many factors involved in the contraction of any cancer and we’d advise that adding ANY additional risk factors is generally a very bad idea. It’s really very much like playing a form of Russian roulette, and people like yourself, who already have high environmental risk factors, probably don’t want to add any more.

"At most cancer centers they’ll tell you, “Low risk does not mean that you won’t get cancer, it means that the chances of you getting it are somewhat smaller. High risk means that your chances of contracting cancer may be higher, but it doesn’t mean that you’ll develop cancer.”


OK, while I'm still not sure what the verdict was, based on that particular response, I don't think he said anything close to what you're claiming - that I'm "making these things up."

"The burden is YOURS under your causal rules PROVE that EVERY time ANY person drinks alcohol they WILL get into an accident or kill someone, EVERY TIME." (BH)


Thankfully THAT is NOT the standard. There doesn't have to be a ONE-to-ONE accident to drunk driving incident to enable the state to regulate a PRIVILEGE (driving).

All I or anyone must prove is does drinking alcohol impair one's motor functions and at what level does it impair those functions.

Thankfully, that's easy to answer; "Alcohol levels in the brain are difficult to measure. As a result, blood alcohol levels were first used to assess the concentration of alcohol in a person's brain tissue. It was determined that most people begin to show measurable mental impairment at around 0.05% blood alcohol. At around 0.10% mental impairment will show obvious physical signs, such as an unsteady walk. Slurred speech shows up at around 0.15%.

"Unconsciousness results by 0.4%. Above 0.5%, the breathing center of the brain or the beating action of the heart can be anesthetized, resulting in death."

http://www.intox.com/about_alcohol.asp?selectedText=AboutAlcohol

0.05% blood alcohol is where most people show signs of impairment, so given that, 0.08% seems a very generous standard to me.

Since there is NO "Constitutional right to drive" (it's a privilege we pay for with licensing fees, registration fees etc.) the government can REGULATE that "licensed privilege" as it sees fit.

What all that means is that you really have no argument here.

As I noted above, if the federal government (the FDA) OUTLAWED tobacco, trans fats, or any other food it decided was dangerous tomorrow, I'd applaud.

I support the BANNING of any & all "ILLEGAL substances." I believe that's my "civic duty" as an American.

I only have a problem with Municipalities banning substances that are still legal.

I DON'T have to prove that Supply-Side policies work - 26 years of unbridled and unprecedented prosperity prove that. Not 10...NOT 20, but 26 looong years!

I DID show how Keynesian policies failed.

And you said you admired Nixon's "wage & Price controls. That figures, as you don't understand things, you merely mimmick them....you're like an ape trying to eat with a knife and fork.

If you want to see Wage & Price controls up close right now, look no further than Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is locking up thousands of businesspeople for ignoring his imposed Price controls.

SEE: http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/07/wage-price-controls-put-zimbabwe-on.html

I wish there were some way to argue against economic Liberty/Capitalism, but alas there isn't. I think I'd have thought of them already.....but...nope, I've come up with nothing. If I DO come up with an argument, I'll be sure to alert you, how's that?

JMK,
I now think DBK is right about you. What this oncologist wrote to you, is essentially identical to what I and the rest of the people have been telling you. But you are trying to present it as supporting your version of reality.

He wrote you:
"probably the primary risk factor for cancer, smoking is a major risk factor, perhaps one of biggest risk factors for any single activity"

and that is exactly correct. Then you are deliberately mixing the question of cancer (in general) versus lung cancer, in order to elicit the reponse you want. When he lists various other causes of cancer, he is talking about cancer of all sites, but you deliberately try to mislead everyone that he is talking about lung cancer (to prove your silly point). For instance, diet is not linked to lung cancer, but is linked to many other cancers. But you use it to create a (fake) argument that diet is as important for lung cancer as smoking.

The fact is that smoking is by far the highest and most important cause of lung cancer. The whole universe knows that. And as your friend oncologist wrote to you, second hand smoking is "viewed as a significant health risk", for very good reasons.

So, what I wrote about you stands. You make things up, by deliberately misrepresenting their meaning, in order to deceive.

"He wrote you:

"probably the primary risk factor for cancer, smoking is a major risk factor, perhaps one of biggest risk factors for any single activity"

"and that is exactly correct." (BW)


Wait! I don't want to call you a liar, BUT you just badly misquoted (mangled even?) the good doctor, who actually said, "While all environmental factors combined (exposure to UV rays, various pollutants, etc.) are probably the primary risk factor for cancer, smoking is a major risk factor, perhaps one of biggest risk factors for any single activity..."

He acknowledged that environmental factors are the NUMBER ONE risk factor for cancer.

He seemed to suggest that smoking and diet were "very close" in his opinion....OK, that's really not out of line with my view either.

He also seemed to suggest (although I'm interpreting here) that there is no "ONE-to-ONE causal effect between ANY risk factor and ANY cancer.

("Risk factors are just that “risk factors.” There are many factors involved in the contraction of any cancer and we’d advise that adding ANY additional risk factors is generally a very bad idea."....and "“Low risk does not mean that you won’t get cancer, it means that the chances of you getting it are somewhat smaller. High risk means that your chances of contracting cancer may be higher, but it doesn’t mean that you’ll develop cancer.”)

While I agree he didn't agree with me 100%, I didn't see where he said anything close to what you said - smoking is the primary cause of cancer and that "I was making things up."

Moreover, and THIS is the larger overall point....and I WON'T let you wiggle away from it, or ignore it - YOU'VE argued in favor of the government banning LEGAL substances (like trans fats, tobacco, alcohol, sweets, etc)...I've merely argued in FAVOR of an individual being FREE to CHOOSE to buy or not those substances that remain LEGAL, but potentially dangerous (ALL substances are "dangerous" under certain circumstances).

Moreover, I offered you a very "FAIR DEAL"; "Come ON! You're...willing to let government tell you what you can and cannot eat, so long as they couch it terms of a "public health threat," so how can you be opposed to the government protecting you from an even bigger, far more pervasive, not to mention REAL public health threat - TERRORISM?

"I have a compromise, How about I accept the efficacy of smoking and trans fat bans, SO LONG AS YOU all accept the efficacy of more intrusive anti-terror tactics - more surveillance cameras on our streets, easier access to wiretaps, etc., etc.?"

You've argued for a more intrusive government, all I'm aski-demanding is LOGICAL CONSISTENCY on your part.

Isn't that fair?

Ok JMK,
I had enough of this. You either can not understand basic facts or you pretend that you can not understand basic facts. In either case, it is impossible to communicate rationally with you. Facts don't exist in your world. Only what JMK choses to be reality is reality.

You said, "You (jmk) make things up, by deliberately misrepresenting their meaning, in order to deceive," and then proceeded to use a misquote (probably by accident, I presume) to claim that the email I posted said something it didn't seem to say.

I clearly SAID; "I don't want the government telling people not to drink alcohol, not to smoke or chew tobacco, not to eat sweets etc.

"Those are ALL personal choices and since some people can do all those "potentially bad things" without many negative health effects, they should remain personal choices....they MUST remain personal choices within a free society."

You've erroneously and apparently deliberately claimed that I've said "smoking isn't bad for one's health," when (1) I've said nothing of the sort and (2) smoking is NOT the issue here!

I've argued that "Cigarettes are LEGAL.

(They ARE)

"So long as they are DBK should be able to buy cigarettes, light up and smoke to his heart's content and JMK should be allowed to sell said cigarettes to his heart's content.

"But cigarettes are harmful in many ways!

"So what?! So long as they're LEGAL then I can sell them and the people (including DBK) have the right to choose to buy them, or NOT.

"Without THAT basic freedom to CHOOSE and "make bad decisions for ourselves," there are NO other freedoms worth fighting for.

"If the government can restrict tobacco and trans fats, why not saturated fats...why not ban sweets, alcohol, etc???

"If the government can do that "for our own good," WHY not restrict our "rights" to assemble peacefully to air our grievances? Why not monitor and regulate was can be said over the internet, or for that matter in ALL forms of communication?

"ALL those "freedoms" are rooted in the "freedom to choose," - the freedom "to make good, bad, reckless and disatrous decisions for ourselves."

"Smoking is indeed ONE among many "risk factors" for lung cancer and emphysema and NOT "the highest risk factor," as "environmental factors." In fact, that's why almost 40% of those who contract lung cancer don't smoke."

I've also said, "Do I doubt that many of the byproducts of combustion are carcinogenic?

"Not at all.

"In fact, they are probably the ONLY risk factor that's "higher" than even "environmental factors," BUT as I'm sure all those oncologists I've spoken to would attest, "There is NO "absolute" or ONE-to-ONE causal link between ANY "risk factor" and ANY cancer."

"I suppose that's why I'm still alive and kicking, while many great guys, I've known and worked with (many in even better condition than I, at the time) have died far younger than I am now, from things like brain cancer, germ cell cancer, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, etc.

(If there were an "absolute" or ONE-to-ONE causal link between ANY "risk factor" and cancer (yes, even firefighting without a SCBA) then I'd be as dead as many of the other firefighters I've worked with over the years.)

I ALSO SAID; "If there were an "absolute" link (a ONE-to-ONE causal effect) between smoking and lung cancer, then I'd support making that product ILLEGAL.

"And the public official MOST to blame on that would be....LBJ, after all, it was during his administration that warning labels were first required, so the dangers were known."

Throughout this discussion, I've merely argued in FAVOR of an individual being FREE to CHOOSE to buy or not those substances that remain LEGAL, but potentially dangerous (ALL substances can be "dangerous" under certain circumstances).

You've argued IN FAVOR of more restrictive and more intrusive government. All I'm saying is that you should be consistent on the a more restrictive and intrusive government on security and criminal matters!

Be consistent!

I said that Caveat Emptor ("Let the buyer beware") IS the essence of freedom, as it IS "the right of us free people to CHOOSE, or make our own decisions."

Stupid beyond all hope of redemption. JMK has shown that he can misunderstand with more words than anyone else. Do they give prizes for that? Wasn't there a USENET award of some kind for the JMKs of the world? I seem to recall there was.

JMK, is you rreal name David Rasmussen?

So you're saying that the basic freedom to choose...or make decisions for ourselves IS NOT "freedom."

OK, you're allowed to believe that. Just be consistent...if there shouldn't be "the freedom to buy and use perfectly legal items like tobacco, alcohol, trans fats, corn sweeteners, etc, then there's no way to argue in favor of say, abortion, as "CHOICE" or "the right of free people to choose."

I support all but third trimester abortion as a "freedom of choice" - the right of free people to make good, bad, or even disastrous decisions/choices for themselves, but YOU don't believe in "the right to choose."

I'm glad I don't know you. I really don't like people who oppose other people's right to make choose - to decisions both good AND bad decisions for themselves.

So this isn't merely about a difference in defining "freedom" then...it's really about choice having everything to do with "freedom" for ME, and nothing to do with "freedom" for you.

Usually people who believe in "license" ("people should be "free" to do anything, so long as they don't deliberately harm anyone else") as "freedom," take issue with my view of "freedom" as Liberty - self-ownership and personal responsibility. I define "freedom" as America's Founders did, as LIBERTY, NOT license.

But your disagreement is with "freedom as the right to choose."

Well, I disagree.

So you're saying that the basic freedom to choose...or make decisions for ourselves IS NOT "freedom."

Nope, never said that or implied it or intended it. That's something you made up in your whacky little criminal-wannabe coconut. Just because you enjoy writing incoherent, dopey garbage at great length is no reason to misrepresent others.

Look, I'm trying to dialogue here DBK, and because you're having a tough time defending your positions, you seem to be making that dialogue as difficult as possible.

Above, you claimed to take issue with, "I said that Caveat Emptor ("Let the buyer beware") IS the essence of freedom, as it IS "the right of us free people to CHOOSE, or make our own decisions." In fact, you took rather strong exception to it.

Well, indeed Caveat Emptor ("Let the buyer beware") IS merely an endorsement of a free individual's right to CHOOSE, or to "make GOOD, BAD, even disastrous decisions for themselves."

As much as "freedom" (at least as defined the way T. Jefferson and myself define it - as Individual LIBERTY) is "the right to (try and ) succeed," it is ALSO "the right to fail," as well.

I generally oppose the government banning items that have not been declared ILLEGAL. In fact, I tend to oppose all "prohibitions" on the grounds that "free people have a right to make their own decisions with their own bodies." It's why I support 98% of abortions (through the second trimester) and why I support nearly absolute gun rights too.

Since I don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol (haven't for the past twenty years) and I rarely eat out (we cook at the firehouse and I cook at home, as well), banning ANY or ALL those things (tobacco, alcohol and trans fats) would have no direct impact on me, BUT since those things are all currently LEGAL - they can be bought and sold freely - I certainly oppose any sort of arbitrary (localized) ban on such things.

Now, IF the FDA tomorrow declared tobacco, trans fats and alcohol to be ILLEGAL substances, like cocaine and marjuana, I'd almost certainly support, or at least ACCEPT the law that made those items illegal, TRUSTING that they were outlawed for "some good reason."

Sure, I tend to oppose prohibitions on "dangerous substances," because such prohibitions have a very checkered history...and again, they seem to go against the idea of "free people" having the right to make disastrous, even lethal decisions for themselves.

BUT, I also understand the law enforcement viewpoint that "making some substances illegal, allows law enforcement to go after people otherwise NOT involved in any overt criminal activities (rape, robbery, assault, etc.)," as that's one of the things our current drug laws do.

ALL police organizations attest to the fact that illegal drug laws allow them to be far more pro-active in their search for criminals....something I think we all here (except perhaps for Bailey) tend to support.

So, I wouldn't have to be "convinced of any reason" to make tobacco or trans fats, etc., illegal, just as I DON'T need to know the medical intricacies behind why cocaine and marijuana are "dangerous" and thus "must be made illegal," in order to accept the "illegality" of those things.

As much as I might not like the idea that those substances have been made "illegal" by fiat (and, in fact, I DON'T like that at all), I understand why law enforcement, in an increasingly complex society feels it needs an "entry point" on which to base increasingly intrusive policies and I tend to accept that.

None of us (I trust) want lawlessness. In fact, criminal activity (robbery, theft, etc) is the most direct form of property redistribution there is and it's almost certain;y why America's Founders were so strong on police powers - they were ALL propertied men who saw one of government's FEW necessary functions as protecting the PROPERTY interests of those who most moved society forward - well-off, property owners.

THAT'S what I mean when I say, "Throughout this discussion, I've merely argued in FAVOR of an individual being FREE to CHOOSE to buy or not those substances that remain LEGAL, but potentially dangerous.

"You've argued IN FAVOR of a more restrictive and more intrusive government for purported "health reasons." All I'm saying is that you should then be consistent and also support a more restrictive and intrusive government on security and criminal matters, as well!"

Whether you've refused to defend your position (whatever it might be) or can't, the end result is the same.

You're the one who's made scurrilous accusations and used insult as argument. All I'm trying to do is to get your side of things and better understand where you and I might disagree.

"All I'm trying to do is to get your side of things and better understand where you and I might disagree."

No JMK, that's not what you do. What you do is you deliberately misrepresent basic facts, to support your bizzare ideas that are completely out of touch with reality. DBK is right.

I really can’t believe this!

This discussion is soooo utterly one sided.

I’m going to be a senior in College this Fall and I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and would’ve voted for Al Gore in 2000 and while I don’t like JMK’s arguments in favor of more intrusive police procedures and against government regulating things that may pose health risks, this discussion has been entirely one-sided because not one of the three (isn't it 3?) people who’ve opposed him here has made even one, single, reasonable argument to counter him.

Why and how is that?

Not only has JMK made full and passionate arguments for his position, he’s actually made me re-think my position on more intrusive police procedures!

I too support things like banning trans fats and would also support banning tobacco too, but JMK’s right that if I support those things on the grounds of government addressing various health issues, then how can I honestly oppose more intrusive police procedures endorsed by that very same government to address various safety and security issues?

I honestly don’t know the answer to that one, at this point.

A fair point JMK.

I’m ashamed that none of those who’ve challenged JMK have made any real arguments to counter him. You’re all guilty of making JMK look good, merely by failing to argue effectively for your POV.

If I can’t come up with a credible argument to counter JMK’s without advancing a hypocritical double standard by the end of this coming week (by Friday 7/20/07), I’ll admit as much.

I think it’s a shame to allow arguments that you deeply oppose to go unchallenged, and that’s what those who’ve opposed JMK have done here.

Be prepared JMK, even if no one else will, I’m going to challenge your arguments, or I will acknowledge your point about us having to be “logically consistent.”

I'm mortified that no one here has been able to really make a factual argument against this JMK character.

Susan,
JMK can not be taken seriously. How can you take seriously a person who argues that smoking is NOT the most common cause of lung cancer or that "Ann Coulter is a great historian"? His arguments are usually based on distortion of the truth and have no credibility.

Regarding your question about banning trans-fat versus intrusive police procedures, the answer is simple. Health issues are very different than political freedom issues. JMK was comparing unrelated things and his arguments can not be taken seriously. I agree with you that trans fat and even smoking should be banned. There are established clear-cut risks and deaths associated with such products. Most importantly, there will be nothing subjective in the application of laws banning such products.

"Health issues are very different than political freedom issues. JMK was comparing unrelated things and his arguments can not be taken seriously." (Blue Wind)

No, Blue Wind, I don't think it's as simple as that...and that's why (I think) Conservatives seem to consistently win arguments now a days. At least they make arguments, while too many of us more Liberal people fail or refuse to do that.

JMK argues, and I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth, that freedom is the right to make both good and bad decisions for ourselves. I think that's his view.

Alright, so far as that goes, that seems undeniable.

Now I struggle with his analogy because I believe that terrorism is far more of an immediate threat than almost anything else.

Given that terrorism poses that much of a safety risk, how can we argue that it's OK to support outlawing tobacco, trans fats and other unhealthy foods, without accepting the necessity of allowing government to take more proactive steps to protect us from terrorism, our children from pedophiles and so on?

I came upon an essay of JMK's (linked back to his website, that's how I found him and subsequently, this site) on race and gender preferences.

I supported them wholeheartedly and still struggle to support them now, but I'm grappling with the many of the points raised in JMK's essay.

He didn't argue against preferences based on reverse discrimination or any unfairness to whites, but on their negative impact on their apparent beneficiaries and how such preference violate the concepts of equal protection and equality before the law. His agrument was so well formed that a professor used that piece in class to spark discussion.

It created quite an uproar and I've known a few students who actually changed their opinions.

Not after reading your article alone JMK, but after assessing it among a number of other points of discussion, the one that impacted the majority of us the most was that a law professor called the argument, on the equal protection clause to be "credible."

I think it's dangerous, if not fatal to the truth not to challenge the JMK's of the world when we honestly disagree and just dismissing them is not practical.

It allows them to do what he's done here, to appear as one merely seeking to dialogue with hostile and petty opponents. It's like ideological judo, where suddenly JMK takes the victim's role and grabs the moral high ground.

No, his ideas must be refuted and I admit, since I found his arguments on race and gender preferences powerful, frighteningly powerful, if you ask me, I may not be the one best suited to do that, but I will definitely try.

I don't think it's a good idea to shy away from the likes of JMK.

That's why, just as I'm still struggling with his arguments against race and gender preferences, I'm seriously struggling with this dilemma - how do we defend government intruding on our behalf in health issues and not when it comes to threats that are just as serious, if not more so, like terrorism?

I intend to try and refute that. I'm not going to back down from JMK and I'm not going to dismiss him, I think he sees that as an opponent defaulting in his favor.

Susan...from LSU, right?

A couple of former HazMat-1 guys are down there in their Hazardous Materials and anti-terror program - Ed and Jeff.

I got your email and two from your friend Crystal Simmons (she was very nice, even though I think she initially thought I was motivated by bigotry).

She mentioned the instructor passing that article of mine out, NOT in any agreement with it....I wouldn't expect that from a College instructor.

At any rate, I look forward to your challenge, it'd be the first.

I do appreciate your coming into this with an open mind, but I don't know if "verbal judo" is really a fair assessment of my posts, as that implies some sort of trickery or legerdemain on my part, which I don't believe I'm guilty of.

I'll agree with you that most Liberals fail to make arguments, perhaps because they mistakenly think they don't have to convince others of what seems so obvious to them....believe me, I think Conservative principles "should be obvious" to any thinking person, but I know that they have to be put forward correctly, or you can turn people off by seeming indifferent toward others.

At any rate, I don't know how old you are, but I have a hunch you'll go through many changes before you reach my age, and I'd bet my views seem less foreign to you the older you'll get.

I'm not looking to alienate anyone, I'd just like to help people think about things a little differently. I'm not an enemy, just another American. The "enemies" today wear rags on their heads and subscribe to Sharia Law.

Crystal said she was going to sit down with one of her instructors to frame a rebuttal on the piece they handed around - I look forward to that, and I look forward to yours here too.

I don't know why BW said the things he did. He's pretty dogmatic and I think he viscerally dislikes my views...again, I don't fully know why.

Look around here for yourself. Look back at some of the archives, if you want to, or get the chance...and make up your own mind on that.

"Given that terrorism poses that much of a safety risk, how can we argue that it's OK to support outlawing tobacco, trans fats and other unhealthy foods, without accepting the necessity of allowing government to take more proactive steps to protect us from terrorism"

Just for the record, smoking kills far more many people than terrorism, but people forget that. Anyway, no one argues that the goverment should not take more pro-active steps to protect us from terrorism. It absolutely should. But there is a difference between being pro-active and abusing the system.

As John Edwards correctly pointed out, the incorrect term "war on terror" has been massively abused for political purposes. Terrorism can only be fought with intelligence and police work, but not on a battle field. The term "war on terror" has been promoted and abused extensively by an ideological gang of the far right (neoconservatists) that used it to start an unnecessary war in Iraq.

JMK believes in neoconservatism and corporatism and he finds people like Ann Coulter to be "great historians". He even thinks that one of the worst fascists dictators in history, Pinochet of Chile, was not that bad and he created an economic miracle in Chile. You can not argue rationally with someone who believes things like that.

Yes, Susan from LSU, JMK and I have looked around here a little bit.

I think bnj is probably the most moderate or temperate of the posters here.

You are an odd combination, you seem passionate in your arguments, but I get the impression that you’re emotionally unavailable.

It seems you get a kick out of goading people who you’re sure either can’t or won’t make a real argument against your views.

Personally, I don’t think that’s very nice at all.

I’m not saying that you deserve the insults and put-downs some of the posters have hurled at you, but it doesn’t seem like you try very hard to persuade anyone you determine to be “dogmatic.”

Isn’t that your word?

I’m going to work on making that argument and I will reply before the end of the coming week, but I do have to give this some thought.

I don’t think your being fair at all BlueWind.

I did read a few of JMK’s admiring Milton Friedman, I didn’t see any posts of his applauding Pinochet. In fact I think he said something like all dictators are brutal toward their enemies, but Socialist ones are just as brutal to their supporters, because of the failed economies, or something like that.

I took one economics class and I hated it, but I know the professor I had also revered Milton Friedman and many economists today seem to admire him and some of the other economists from, I think they call it the Austrian School, I believe that’s what it was. So, Milton Friedman seems to be a widely admired economist and a lot of economists today are SupplySiders and pro-Capitalism in their outlook. In fact, I can’t think of many who aren’t, at least not any around today, but I took my sole economics class from a disciple of Milton Friedman’s. I think he studied under Professor Friedman at the University of Chicago.

Anyway, I’ve copied some of the parts of this discussion about cancer risks, yours, JMK’s and that email that JMK posted, but I think the discussion about cancer risks was a diversion here. I knew it drew me away from the real issue about what government’s proper role should be. I’ll look at those discussions, but I think they detracted from the real issue, at least they did for me.

I didn't see JMK on Anne Coulter. Are you a Coulter fan JMK?

I agree with those who support a more proactive government on health matters, but JMK’s point that that kind of government is also going to take a more proactive position on things like terrorism, the NSA program, the infiltration of Mosques, more public security cameras like they have in England. Certainly many police commissioners like LA’s Bill Bratton (who I know JMK seems to like) and New York’s Ray Kelly support those kinds of things, so it’s not like that viewpoint doesn’t have its supporters BlueWind.

There has to be more of a history between you two, because you really do seem to personally dislike JMK, and although I get the feeling he feels likewise, he seems like the type who won’t wear his emotions on his sleeve like that, or maybe it’s part of that verbal judo thing, which I really think isn’t a very nice way to discuss things.

Like I said, it just seems like there has to be more of a history there between you two.

Well, I’d agree that Barry (BNJ) IS by far the most temperate poster around here and it’s also his blog.

In my defense, he’s a lot smarter than I am.

We both know that “you get more flies with honey,” only he remembers and applies that consistently...while I rarely, if ever do.

OK, I don’t know what “emotionally unavailable” is.

If you mean that I’m not the kind of guy who’d gush, “Ohhhh my GAWD those flowers are Beee-U-tee-FULL,” you’re absolutely right.

In my experience emotions have always been a detriment and a liability. For me they were always a problem, as many of them seem to run together – fear = anger = hate. At fires it served me well, because the worse the situation the angrier I got. I never got loud. I always stayed calm, but I’d have a boiling rage inside me, the worse things got. Actually, I hate that feeling (feeling angry feels out of control), so even that made it a more painful experience for me. So no, I’ve never really been a very emotional or effusive(?) person.

I don’t know about the “goading.” Really, I don’t think I do that, at least not on purpose.

I think I have a right to “respond in kind,” and most, if not all of the time, I think I’ve been less contentious then say BW or DBK.

With Bailey I’ve pretty much taken to responding in kind...I think the other guys might be kids (20’s or so), and there a lot less dorkish than Bailey. At any rate, I take Bailey as older and I flat out don’t like his deliberately offensive style, so I don’t cut him nearly as much slack, but I will say that I think I’ve been more decent and patient with him than I feel he deserves.

Anyway, that’s pretty much how I see it...I do look forward to your rebuttal.

"I did read a few of JMK’s admiring Milton Friedman"

I dont care how good of an economist Friedman was, nor I care that he got a Nobel prize. The fact is that Friedman was the KEYNOTE speaker in the economic conference in Chile in 1975 that supported the regime of a fascist dictator and mass-murderer like Pinochet was. He made the plan to support the development of the Chilean economy under a criminal-fascist regime. Of course, JMK and others will make the argument that he was supporting the Chilean economy and not Pinochet. But that argument is ridiculous. How would you feel, lets say, about an American economist that would support the development of the Iraqi economy under the Saddam regime those days? How would JMK feel? Friedman did exactly that with Pinochet.

"I didn't see JMK on Anne Coulter. Are you a Coulter fan JMK?"

As you can see, JMK avoided to answer that question. I dont know if he is a fan of hers, but he has made clear in the past in this blog that he considers her a "great historian". Think of it, Ann Coulter a great historian?? LOL.

"I didn't see JMK on Anne Coulter. Are you a Coulter fan JMK?"


I'm working!

Thankfully I'm mobile...thanks to WiFi now. Been mobile since sometime in April!

As to this Coulter-obsession on BW's part, I think it began about a month ago, when BW dug up a Coulter quote cited by Digby and posted it on his blog, the quote went, We need to be less concerned about civilian casualties...we bombed more people in Hamburg in two days ... I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians... we should kill their people. (Anne Coulter)

BW claimed to have a huge problem with it, I DIDN’T. In fact, I agree with the gist of that statement which is “I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians.

What decent American wouldn't?

I’ll add that even Barry (BNJ) had no problems with that quote either;

“And as far as the Coulter comments you cite, I myself don't have any qualms with them, although Blue might differ. Ann Coulter says a *lot* of stuff I agree with.

“But she also says a lot of vile, hateful stuff that's as disgusting as anything the left has to offer

BNJ

For the record, I agree completely with Barry's stagtement, first AND last parts. BW would have you overlook that.

In my reply to Barry, I was clear about how I felt about Coulter and that I merely felt that the quote in question was not really controversial at all.

“Barry, Anne Coulter is a ratings machine. The more outrageous her comments, the more attention she garners.

“She's found that if she says, even agreeable things, in an outrageous way, she'll get attention, sell books, etc.

“It's "nice work, if you can get it."

She's not one of my favorite people. I just saw the one comment the digby article focused on....and saw nothing really wrong with it. She's said a lot of other things that were far more vile...


As for her quote, "I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians..."

Well, I think it's safe to say that the ONLY people who'd disagree with THAT statement are people who 'd "rather see our civilians die, rather than theirs, right?

My position on that quote and that issue has been very clear from the start, it’s been;

(1) I agree with the US Military that has acknowledged that ALL the "insurgents" and "jihadists" in the Mideast are also "CIVILIANS."

They are RIGHT & JUST to target those "civilians," and the ongoing war between "radicalized Islam and the West will INCREASINGLY be one between civilian populations.

(2) I agree with the US Military, that they are duty bound to fight and even target that "civilian-based menace."

(3) I fully AGREE with the statement "I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians..."

BW was never able to substantiate or explain exactly what he found offensive in that particular Coulter quote. I think he just took it on faith that ANY Coulter quote would be obviously offensive and when I showed how this one wasn’t, well, he couldn’t defend his position, so he got a little frustrated (OK, maybe a lot) with me.

And yes, I DID say that Anne Coulter was “a great historian” in reference to hearing talk about the Cold War and how Joe McCarthy, if anything underestimated the extent of communist infiltration in America at that time.

Every credible thing I’ve read indicates that that viewpoint is right and she actually had names of many of the infiltrators.

Does she advance Conservatism?

In my view no, she’s too confrontational and seems to go out of her way to often be offensive, BUT is she worse then, or even as bad as some of the scum on the Left, like Franken and Moore?

In my view no.

Am I a Coulter fan?

I think the above shows that not to be the case.

"And yes, I DID say that Anne Coulter was “a great historian”"

JMK,
Thank you. That summarizes your case and proves that your arguments do not have and can not have any credibility. If your sources of history are Ann Coulter and the likes, it figures why everything you write is out if touch with reality.

Please let me know when Ann Coulter writes her next history book! I will run to buy it.

I agree with Susan that Milton Friedman is a well-respected and world reknowned economist.

He may very well be one of, if not the best economist ever to come out of America.

BW, is hopelessly naive.

In his view, deriding Dr. Friedman, in some way negates Friedman's economic policies (he was a Moneterist and Supply-Sider)....but, of course, that's just not so.

Otherwise socialism, communims, or any other form of collectivism would be negated by the fact that the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, all were vaying kinds of collectivists.

NO, what negates collectivism as an economic system is its record of abysmal failure everywhere its been tried.

Just as what's made Capitalism (market-based economies) economically viable, has been its unbridled success everywhere it's been tried....yes, even in places run by military juntas, with few, if any political freedoms.

There ARE Americans who support a more collectivist economy, albeit a limited form of collectivism - they talk of nonsense like "economic justice," and "equalizing incomes" and "reining in the disparities in income....things like that. Keynesians, like all collectivists put the GROUP ahead of the INDIVIDUAL, the reverse of America's Founder's Design. The Keynesians are best exemplified by the likes of LBJ, Nixn, Ford and Carter, who ALL subscribed to basic Keynesianism.

It FAILED miserably.

END of STORY.

We've (well, most of us) moved on and Supply-Side policies have delivered over a quarter century of unbridled and unprecedented prosperity.

People like BW, should start each day the way I do, with a hearty, "Thank you Dr. Friedman, for showing us all the way!

"And yes, I DID say that Anne Coulter was “a great historian” in reference to hearing talk about the Cold War and how Joe McCarthy, if anything underestimated the extent of communist infiltration in America at that time.

"Every credible thing I’ve read indicates that that viewpoint is right and she actually had names of many of the infiltrators." (JMK)


"Thank you. That summarizes your case and proves that your arguments do not have and can not have any credibility." (BW)


That's hardly a fair assessment BW, as I explained that I found her knowledge of the Cold War (when interviewed on it) to be "excellent," in my view.

I believe Whittaker Chambers, a former communist, chronicled the same things Coulter did...in fact, I believe she used Chambers as a source. His books Witness and Ghosts on the Roof are still classics.

I've explained my controversial view of Coulter as a historian (OK, should've said "Cold War chronicler"), but you've yet to explain why you found the quote, “I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians," to be "offensive."

What's at all offensive about THAT?!

Are your really saying you'd rather see our civilians die than theirs?

"Just as what's made Capitalism (market-based economies) economically viable, has been its unbridled success everywhere it's been tried....yes, even in places run by military juntas, with few, if any political freedoms."

JMK,
Thanks for proving again my point that you find fascism and military juntas acceptable. Think about it. Based on what you write, you think fascism is just fine. In your opinion, it was good that people like Freedman supported one of the worst criminal regimes in history, as long as the economical experiment there worked. Ask the thousands of dead killed by Pinochet, and their families, if they agree with that.

"What's at all offensive about THAT?!"

JMK,
I told you many times that I will not explain to you whats wrong with that idiotic statement. Think over and over and, maybe, at some point you will figure out what is wrong with that. Try to think a little out of the box, then it may become obvious to you.

"Thanks for proving again my point that you find fascism and military juntas acceptable." (BW)


That was never implied, and YOU think I "deliberately misrepresent!"

Any sane person reading my above statement would see that I've merely stated the obvious - that Capitalism has been shown to work even under the most repressive regimes.

Hell! Capitalism would've worked under Stalin, Hitler and Mao, without making any of those guys any less brutal tyrants.

One of the reason collectivism fails is that it turns America's Founders design on its head. We're a nation built on INDIVDUAL rights and private property, so those, in America, who talk of "income redistribution" and "equalizing people" are people who revile the cherished principles this nation was founded on.

I vehemently oppose those who suuport Keynesian policies and support things like "reducing the wide disparities in incomes."

As for the statement you can't really find offense with, I'll make it as simple as possible - EVERY insurgent and EVERY al Qaida member is "a CIVILIAN."

I'd guess most Americans would agree with the statement "We're just not killing enough of those civilian enemies."

I'll go even further, here in the US ther are an estimated 200 terror cells - some of them comprised of American citizens. I support ways of stripping those "CIVILIAN enemies" here in the US of at least some of their basic civil rights.

I can understand someone respectfully disagreeing, but NOT finding my views "offensive."

I never said that I found that particular view of yours offensive. I just think is (very) stupid.

You find the view, "I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians..." when we're fighting a CIVILIAN enemy, to be stupid?

Well, as I pointed out, it would seem that the only alternative is to wish that "more of OUR civilians die than theirs."

Is that really your view.

Or is your view that our Military shouldn't be engaged against a civilian enemy?

BOTH of those seem like horrific, albeit naive viewpoints, given the determination of that enemy to to do as much damage to the West as they can.

JMK,
You are being ridiculous. You interpretations are simply laughable. Grow up and stop making up things.

OMG, you two (BlueWind & JMK) are just plain terrible.

JMK, you don’t see where you goad people? Really?

I’ve read a fair number of your posts and your emails and looked over your website, and you certainly have a dry sense of humor, but that kind of humor doesn’t always come across in print and your never using any cursives as indicators, or any of those (smiling, winking) icons, doesn’t help.

You do sometimes come across like your deliberately baiting others and that can make you appear a little arrogant at times.

And BlueWind, you’re not any better!

On the health issues (tobacco and trans fats) and on that one Coulter quote, you haven’t been fair at all.

In fact, and this is sad, you argue like many of the liberal guys on my campus – they don’t make arguments, the way conservatives do, they mock, they ridicule and insult, feigning that they “don’t have to make an argument to counter conservatives.”

As a result, they lose most arguments by default.

BlueWind, whatever one may feel about Milton Friedman’s views, he remains a well respected economist worldwide and I do think JMK is right that Capitalism or Supply Side economics works, while more socialist policies generally don’t. He’s probably right that Dr. Friedman’s economics may have well worked under Stalin or Hitler, without making either of those two tyrants better people.

I think JMK was fair in pointing out that while LBJ and Carter were both Keynesians, so was Nixon. He also noted that just as Reagan and the both Bush’s were Supply Siders, so was Bill Clinton. I ran that by two professors in our economics department and both said that Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter being Keynesians was correct and that the view that since then, Supply Side policies have ruled the day, is also true. I know that one of them would’ve wanted to disagree (he tends to disagree with anyone else), but all he could say about the assertion JMK made was “Well, technically, uhhh yeah, technically that’s true.”

So BlueWind you haven’t been honest in that regard, or even fair.

As far as Ann Coulter goes, I don’t like her one bit. I think she’s not only very bitter, but she’s an extremely mean-spirited and obnoxious woman.

But I have to admit that people like Keith Olbermann and Al Franken are also mean-spirited and obnoxious.

My brother is a Marine. He’s been to Iraq twice and to Somalia once, so far, and I ran that particular Coulter quote that JMK defended and BNJ had no problem with and my brother agreed wholeheartedly with JMK, saying that all those killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan are listed as civilians. He also says that the there have been fewer collateral casualties in either Iraq or Afghanistan than in any previous war fought.

He read Coulter’s quote the way I did, Coulter using “civilians” as “civilian insurgents and jihadists,” not innocent women and children.

After reading all your responses BlueWind, I believe you understood that Coulter’s use of “civilians” in that quote meant civilian insurgents and jihadists, too (otherwise you would’ve said so), but you where being deliberately dishonest on that to goad JMK. Again, you’re not being fair and you probably feeling that “You don’t have to be fair with conservatives” only makes you look bad.

I’ve seen posts of yours BlueWind that defend Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore and Al Franken (all controversial and in many people’s eyes obnoxious, mean-spirited men) and haven’t seen JMK or BNJ, or any conservative call your credibility into question over supporting them, so that too just makes you appear unfair and petty.

Overall, I have to say that this blog’s comments section is pretty unique to me. It’s actually a place where people who tend to disagree intently can exchange views without much of the viciousness and outright threats you find on some other more politically oriented sites like the DU or Free Conservatives. In fact, there is only one exception I’ve found here and that is the person Bailey, who is just appalling in how he insults those who disagree with him. He’s absolutely disgusting. I saw him refer to other ethnicities in the most racist of ways and referred to gays as “dirty homosexuals!”

And BlueWind, you actually supported this Bailey person in this comments section, I suppose merely because Bailey despises JMK. Supporting a bigot because he also dislikes a specific person is no excuse for embracing that bigot. That really distressed me BlueWind. I was very disappointed to see that.

Anyway, that said, I’ve outlined and am going over some of the points of discussion over the proper role of government in health and safety/security issues.

It’s an interesting topic for me, since I’m majoring in poli-sci.

To date, JMK’s the only one who’s laid out a full and consistent argument. I do appreciate you (BlueWind) making a short note about the separation of health and safety/security, but you haven’t made an argument as to why you think there should be such a split.

Just as on the preferences issue, I have to concede that JMK has made some good points. In fact, I’ve come to agree that race and gender based preferences are probably the wrong way to go, but whereas JMK would apparently seek to eradicate all such preferences, I would not. I’d seek to make them based on “needs,” or “relative deprivation.” In that way, a poor white kid from Appalachia would get preference over a black attorney’s or physician’s kid from Atlanta, or a poor black female would get preference over a wealthier white female.

So in a sense, I guess I’m splitting the difference rather than surrendering outright. I don’t know what you think of such preferences BlueWind, but perhaps this might be a compromise that could save them, at least to an extent.

On the issue of government intrusion I’ve also sort of split the difference. Since I still very much oppose warrantless wiretaps, ethnic profiling and the “no-knock warrants” that have become more popular lately, I had to look closely at government’s role in intervening over “health reasons.”

I also support the legalization of some recreational drugs (like marijuana), so I think JMK’s argument that “unless the government declares a substance illegal, it probably shouldn’t ban it.”

JMK’s right that just as trans fats and tobacco have negative health impacts, so do sugar and alcohol, and I agree with him that the government should not be allowed to regulate a free people’s intake of those things, any more than they should be arbitrarily making marijuana (which I’m sure can be shown to have any number of its own negative health effects) illegal.

Therefore, I would oppose most government intervention for either health or safety/security issues, because a foothold in one (health issues) serves as an entry point for the other.

Educating the public has done more to reduce tobacco use here than taxes or bans, so we probably should focus on educating the public about the health effects of trans fats, saturated fats, sugars and alcohols, and keep government from gaining that entry point from these health issues to use it for safety/security issues.

I’m sorry for going on so long, but I promised to make a full argument against what JMK said and then got sidetracked by a number of other personality issues. I apologize.

P.S. What do you think JMK...BlueWind?

Oh, and JMK, Crystal says Hi and that she never felt you were motivated by any bigotry, she was just skeptical and on some points, still is.

Hey Susan,
I did not support Bailey. It just happened that on the issue of transfat and smoking Bailey was right and JMK was wrong. Bailey calls himself a conservative, not a liberal. In fact, in the past I had asked Barry to ban Bailey from the blog for another issue! (and Barry did for a while, but then Bailey came back). But JMK's position on homosexuals is not that better than Bailey's. JMK has compared homosexuality to necrophilia and bestiality! If that's not bigotry, what is bigotry? I think that both Bailey and JMK have a problem with homosexuality, and their comments on the issue are unacceptable.

I initially posted this in the wrong thread, so I just had to post this in the right spot.

Well BlueWind, you were quite chummy with Bailey and I’ve seen enough of his posts to find him despicable. I am glad to hear you’re no friend, because he seems to be the one malignant person I’ve seen here, after going over the archives the past couple of days.

As much as I disagree with JMK, he makes me think. He challenges my core beliefs and I’ve seen that he constantly challenges his own, and I think that’s refreshing

I think you’re mischaracterizing JMK’s view on homosexuality.

From what I read, he called all those things you mentioned including homosexuality “sexual deviancies.” As all of those behaviors do deviate from the norm, they are sexual deviancies.

JMK never called them “perversions,” which is how my Pastor refers to all such things. I think you’re using “perversion” and “sexual deviancy” as synonyms, when I don’t believe they really are. One (perversion) implies an illicit or wrongful act, while the other (sexual deviancy) implies an act that merely deviates from the norm.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a very sad lifestyle and it’s something that probably should be “curable,” in some way. No one should have to live like an outcast, often with their entire immediate family shunning them.

The idea that “we can change society” is a foolish one, because such things rarely, if ever change. I don’t know if all those programs that seek to change homosexuals to heterosexuals work, or not, but I’d think that would really help those people re-connect with their families and with the larger society as well.

I knew a couple of gay students (males) on campus and both them were isolated from their families. That’s a big deal in many parts of La, even in cities like Baton Rouge and Shreveport.

A roommate of mine, named Melissa is on the women’s basketball team and she’s openly lesbian and she has the same problem, at least with her dad and brothers. Melissa, Rollins and James are all great people, I just think all of them deserve to live happier lives, that’s all.

I don’t think JMK sees homosexuality as a “perversion,” (which involves a negative value judgment) just a “sexual deviancy,” an act that deviates from the accepted norm (without any value judgment). I think he’s actually argued that all such sexual deviancies should be protected from those who’d abuse or discriminate against them in housing and employment. I haven’t seen a post where he spoke of any of those things pejoratively.

On to the issues at hand;

I have a feeling, BlueWind, that you won’t agree with my view on changing affirmative action (from race and gender) to a more needs based system, any more than you will agree that government intervention must be limited all around, in order to keep it from gaining an entry point for across the board intervention.

Worse yet, I have a feeling that you won’t make an argument but merely an assertion, and that makes me very sad, because I see this more and more. It seems that the BlueWind’s aren’t making arguments, because either they don't feel they have to, or they don’t want to even challenge themselves (at least I hope those are the reasons), while the JMK’s go on making arguments and selling their ideas and ideals and winning by default.

Look at what’s happening to the Democratic Party. Charles Schumer (who runs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Rahm Emmanuel (who runs the Democrat’s Congressional Electoral Committee) didn’t seek out liberals to run out west and down south, they sought out conservative Democrats and if they continue to do that, they’ll hand the Democratic Party over to conservatives like JMK.

Recently I read where one of the most liberal schools in the country, Antioch, is about to close its doors for good. One reason, is supposed to be that none of its alumni have been able to fill its endowments.

Meanwhile conservatives predominate in the military, where they learn very technical skills, from piloting jets and helicopters to sophisticated electronics and other skills that are in high demand, and they move into police departments, fire departments and other law enforcement agencies both local and federal, where military service is rewarded.

They also move into the trades (carpentry, electrical work, plumbing, etc), into the corporate world and many of the recently disabled vets are now going into teaching. I read where some teacher’s unions are worried about an increasingly conservative membership in years to come.

So many liberals go into non-profit work, social work, political campaign work and things like that, which are all good things, but they risk not only further balkanizing the workplace, but surrendering huge swaths of the working world to conservatives, the way they’ve surrendered the south and the west to the Republicans.

No offense JMK, but I’m afraid that your ideas, if fully put into practice, would lead to a very cold, sterile world and that’s why we need the BlueWind’s and others to actually counter them with some real and practical alternatives.

Even if some liberal ideas prove unworkable, at least they should try and make a case for those ideas.

Sadly, that hasn’t happened much on my campus and I’m afraid it’s not happening here either.

I think you've pretty much nailed my views on homosexuality Susan.

Thankyou.

I do, as you might expect, disagree on making preferences "needs based" instead of race/gender-based, because I believe that all such preferences violate the concept of equal treatment under the law and equal access to opportunity (the concept that we must all be judged by the same standard).

Would it be preferable to the current travesty?

Yes, but only modestly, in my view.

In fact, I oppose all such preferences - alumni, geographic, donor preferences, etc.

I do NOT oppose some "special considerations" (as written into "the GI Bill") for military veterans, as that could be considered an "earned credit" through "life experience."

As for your take on government intrusions; "On the issue of government intrusion I’ve also sort of split the difference. Since I still very much oppose warrantless wiretaps, ethnic profiling and the “no-knock warrants” that have become more popular lately, I had to look closely at government’s role in intervening over “health reasons.”

"I also support the legalization of some recreational drugs (like marijuana), so I think JMK’s argument that “unless the government declares a substance illegal, it probably shouldn’t ban it.”

"JMK’s right that just as trans fats and tobacco have negative health impacts, so do sugar and alcohol, and I agree with him that the government should not be allowed to regulate a free people’s intake of those things, any more than they should be arbitrarily making marijuana (which I’m sure can be shown to have any number of its own negative health effects) illegal.

"Therefore, I would oppose most government intervention for either health or safety/security issues, because a foothold in one (health issues) serves as an entry point for the other." (Susan)

Well, it's a consistent argument and even though I really believe that we haven't yet given the police enough powers to deal with terrorism, I can accept that your argument is logically consistent and therefore respect your disagreement.

Yes, if we are to argue that many recreational drugs (which do indeed have far more substantial health risks than sugars, trans fats and very close to and in some cases more sever risks than tobacco), on the grounds that "free people should have the right to make such decisions (what to put in their bodies) for themselves, then it's hard, if not impossible to argue in favor of banning substances that are not even ILLEGAL at this point!

On the anti-terror issue, I have to side with increased law enforcement intrusions AND restricted rights for "foreign nationals" and even those U.S. citizens accused of consorting with terrorists because I am convinced that terrorism, is indeed a true "public health threat," in that one person today, can, with a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon wreak unbelievable havoc on an entire city - possibly hundreds of thousands of people, if not more.

Even one determined operative with a "dirty bomb" (a minor radiation hazard, usually medical or low grade industrial rad waste, wrapped in conventional explosives) could wreak untold financial devastation to a major city, and in turn to the rest of the country.

A "Dirty Bomb" is NOT a WMD in the sense of being a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" ( a suitcase nuke would be THAT), BUT instead a Weapon of Mass Disruption, as it would frighten people from using various parts of a major city, or the public transit in that city again.

Another thing I'd support, in relation to this would be the veritable quarantining of various nations vis-a-vis immigration. For instance a policy of accepting no more immigrants of Arabic or Muslim descent, and accepting no more immigrants from places where Islamic jihadism is a major problem (ie. Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, etc.).

Those things probably seem "radical" now, to those people who've "put 9/11 safely and smugly behind them," BUT believe me, just ONE MORE major terror attack on American soil and you'd quickly find that these are comparatively modest proposals compared to the ones that would naturally bubble up from "the people."

"I don’t think JMK sees homosexuality as a “perversion,” (which involves a negative value judgment) just a “sexual deviancy,” an act that deviates from the accepted norm (without any value judgment). I think he’s actually argued that all such sexual deviancies should be protected from those who’d abuse or discriminate against them in housing and employment."

Susan,
I disagree with you on that (strongly). Calling homosexuality a "deviancy" and comparing it to necrophilia (!) or bestiality (!) (as JMK did) is certainly not reflective of tolerance, nor is it accurate. Homosexuality is a normal behavioral variation and calling it "deviancy" provides a basis for discrimination. I also dont think that it is a "sad" lifestyle, nor that it can be "cured". I dont think JMK believes he is a bigot. I am sure he is a good guy in his everydat life. But his views on homosexuality are clearly not tolerant, and, in my opinion, reflect bigotry.

Susan got it completely right BW.

I NEVER "compared" anything to anything.

I made the very obvious assertion that ALL those things are "sexual deviancies," as they all deviate from the accepted norm.

As I've said numerous times, and I suppose Susan (like yourself) saw those posts, I've known people who've engaged in all those sexual deviancies and none of that made'm "bad people" in my eyes.

In actuality, it would seem that I'm actually even more "tolerant" than you yourself, as you seem to feel just one of those deviancies is worthy of protection, while, I guess (I hope I'm wrong), the others are worthy of punishment/discrimination.

As Susan astutely noted, there's a difference between a "sexual deviancy" (something DEVIATES/differs from the accepted norm) and a perversion (which implies a wrongdoing - sex with a child 14 or under, a/k/a pedophilia, for instance.

I do think Susan is wrong however, in thinking that you either (A) don't want to make full arguments or (B) don't feel you have to....NOPE, I'm pretty sure you can't.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think Susan is looking for a Liberal knight willing to passionately argue for those...uh...(how can I put this diplomatically, so as not to be accused of "goading?")...those...uh, yes those idealistic Liberal ideas.

The problem with the vast majority of idealists, Susan, are that they tend to be hopelessly naive.

But don't take my word for it, that's something you'll naturally see as you get older.

When you say that the vast majority of idealists are “hopelessly naïve,” I don’t think that’s fair at all JMK.

I think ideals are important and I do think that some Conservative ideas sound harsh, while some Liberal ones sound far more people-oriented. I know that things like income redistribution through higher tax rates isn’t practical, because it stifles job growth and slows economic growth (I did learn something in that economics class!), but I’d like there to be a way for more people to have more of what they need and want. How is that wrong?

Somewhere you said that Liberalism appeals primarily to emotion, but I don’t think that’s terrible. We are emotional beings after all and we shouldn’t discount emotion entirely, at least I don’t think so.

And I’m not looking for any “liberal knight.” My brother is as conservative as you are. I’m just looking for someone who can make forceful liberal arguments that outline the practical application of those ideas. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.

One thing, on your rebuttal to my compromise position, it seems that you’re being inconsistent now. You’re arguing against government intervening in public health issues, like banning trans fats, tobacco, etc., while arguing in favor of government intervening when public safety issues, like terrorism.

You said you respect “logical consistency.” Well, how is that view logically consistent?

And BlueWind,

Again, I think you’re mischaracterizing JMK’s views about homosexuality.

I didn’t see any direct “comparison.” He just argued on behalf of tolerance for a number of behaviors considered to deviate/differ from the accepted norm.

And I do think that being alienated from your family really is a very sad thing BlueWind. My roommate, Melissa, has tried to commit suicide twice over being estranged from her family.

I wish there were some way for people like Melissa and others like her to re-connect with their families and that’s not possible, especially among families that tend to be religious, as most of the people around here are. I’d just like people like Melissa to be able to have a better life and I don’t think religion is the problem. It’s more than that.

I still don’t know how you feel about my compromise positions.

I have no idea where you stand on preferences, perhaps you oppose them, or don’t much care one way or the other. Most people don't seem to care much about that now a days.

I do think that it’s impossible to argue in favor of government intervention in some areas (health and the economy) and not in others (safety and security), in fact, I’ll be interested to see how JMK justifies supporting safety and security intervention, while opposing banning or outlawing things like tobacco and trans fats and even opposing the outlawing of many recreational drugs, as he does.

I can understand your not wanting to make the kinds of full arguments JMK does. That kind of passion is taxing and it takes a lot of time and effort, for what often seems a minimal return. Still, once you have an argument formulated, you can use it over and over to justify your positions in any setting.

To me, it’s just distressing that so few liberals make those kinds of arguments and often wind up losing by default.

Even on the net, though I’ve seen plenty of bad behavior from both sides, more conservatives sites offer up real arguments, while most liberal sites (especially those like the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos – I don’t even bother with those sites any more) offer up a staple of ridicule and insult, instead of making a case for their positions.

In that way, they’re not helping their cause at all.

I meant to ask this earlier, Susan, what does "OMG" mean?

I understand your thinking that painting all idealists, or all "anythings" with such a broad brush is "unfair," BUT, if you consider things carefully, one of the things you'll note is that idealists of all stripes tend to eschew the practical, in favor of their cherished ideals.

That impracticality is what is hopelessly naive.

I once believed that a completely unregulated free market is not only the best possible engine for creativity, innovation and prosperity for the greatest number, but the ONLY truly moral economic system, that is, one NOT based on theft (redistribution).

That is the classic Libertarian perspective, economically.

Today, I believe that we need some degree of regulation, as Bernard Baruch and J P Morgan said, "to protect both established enterprises and the many jobs they create."

I realize that it's not optimal and it sacrifices some economic Liberty for some economic security, but it works in that it keeps the vast majority of the population (which is overwhelmingly NON-entreprenurial) secure in their day-to-day jobs.

As I said to both BW & DBK, I believe that government has the right to OUTLAW substances and practices it can document as dangerous. To date, it's banned any number of recreational drugs, various steroids and other kinds of "enhancement drugs," like synthetic hormones, etc.

It has NOT seen fit to OUTLAW tobacco or trans fats. Did you know that despite the Bloomberg ban on trans fats and the FDAs stance on limiting trans fat intake, a food can be labeled "0 trans fats per serving" and still have up to 0.5 grams of trans fat content per serving?

And as I'm sure you know, a "serving" is not usually the same as a "normal helping." So, even those of us eating only food labeled "0 trans fats" can be taking in up to 0.5 gms of trans fats per serving, while ingesting two or three "servings" per average "helping" of that product.

Like I said, I oppose the banning of LEGAL substances.

If the government can show that a given substance is a serious health risk, then that substance should be made ILLEGAL, not merely "banned" in various locales.

I feel the same way about public safety as I do about public health.

I'm a strict constructionist. That is, since the Constitution does not expressly extend Constitutional rights (even habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence") to non-citizens, I DO NOT believe those rights actuall exist for those people.

I consider such persons, non-entities, or non-persons from a Constitutional standpoint.

One may disagree with that, BUT it IS a strict constructionist viewpoint.

Moreover, just as I believe that say BW, here has an inalienable right to protect his home and his own lefe with deadly force, even if BW used an unlicensed gun to defend his home & hearth, I do NOT support BW being brought up on ANY charges.

WHY?

Because, in my view, the person in commission of the crime of invading BW's home, has no Constitutional standing as a person at that moment (during the commission of that crime) ergo, there is no actual, or viable "Complainant" against BW.

Those strict constructionist beliefs set the framework of how I view dealing with terrorism.

I do not view terrorsim as a crime and agree fully with the former Director of the FBI's NYC Office, James Fox, who said, "The American criminal justice system is incapable of dealing with international state-sponsored terrorism."

IO agree with that so much, that if I were within the prosecuting arm of our criminal justice system, I'd sabotage any terror cases we handled to prove that larger point.

Look, it wouldn't matter, at that point, if terrorists went free and later wreaked havoc on some American city. The point is that a criminal justice approach top terrorism is doomed to failure anyway.

No, the ONLY way to fight rogue state sponsored international terrorism, in my view, is to deny any and all basic civil rights to non-citizens, and to use any and all means at our disposal to squeeze information out of those unlucky enough to be caught and to eradicate - NOT catch and "bring to trial," but to eradicate all vestigages of any active terror cells within our borders.

In short, Susan, since I believe the Constitution gives NO rights to non-citizens and since it DOES enumberate police and Military (Intelligence) powers to the government, there is indeed Constitutional grounds upon which to intervene to stop public safety threats, like terrorism, while such a governmental power to intervene on behalf of health issues, must be construed.

So, in that regard, I DO support government intervention in BOTH arenas. On the health issue, all I'm asking is that the government first make the substances it wishes to ban ILLEGAL.

"Again, I think you’re mischaracterizing JMK’s views about homosexuality.

I didn’t see any direct “comparison.”

Susan,
If you go and you read old comments of JMK, you will find some in which he is comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and bestiality. That view is very unacceptable and wrong. But JMK can not see that. JMK is not a bad guy, he is a good guy. But he is totally confused, and politically disoriented. He is a "conservative" and "corporatist" against his own interests, but he can not understand that. His position on homosexuality is as bad as his political positions. He is consistent that way. Consistently bad :)

No BW, Susan has it exactly right.

As I've said, "Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy, just as bestiality and necrophilia are."

That's NOT a "comparison," it merely puts three deviant behaviors into a the classification they all belong - sexual deviancies.

Now, if someone were to argue something like, "Look, deviancy and perverion are used interchangably by many people just as are the words "deviant" and "perv," so you've classified all those acts as perversions," that would be different.

To that I'd have to reply, "The fact that many people misuse words, is NOT my problem. Suffice to say, the terms "sexual deviancy" (something that differs from the accepted norm) and "sexual perversion" (an immoral, unlawful sexual abberation) are NOT synoyms and I've used those two terms correctly and with distinction. To argue that some people have such poor vocabularies that they use those terms interchangably is not and cannot be an argument against me using those terms correctly and distinctly."

A perversion is an unlawful act, like pedophilia, and some acts of sadism and masochism.

Bestiality isn't criminalized in many places. In fact, I've read a number of articles about "animal brothels" in the State of Washington. They also exist in Europe.

I'd also argue that neither of those two acts directly harms anyone else, and that those who engage in those acts are, like homosexuals, most likely "born with those traits."

I'm a pragmatist and as such I feel that as long as an action doesn't directly harm others AND it does nothing to impede commerce (commerce is key with me) then I think it's generally OK that people be free to engage in such activities no matter what the personal risks may be.

You wanna smoke pot - OK...smoke tobacco - OK, eat fatty foods, too much sugar, drink alcohol - all OK with me, if not your physician.

Now, if medical studies showed that necrophilia, bestilaity or homosexuality were demonstrably unhealthy, and that they often lead to illnesses that could impact public health, like Hepatisis, genital warts and the papyloma virus, or AIDs, I'd support banning/criminalizing any of those behaviors that did any of those things, just as I'd support the government making tobacco or trans fats ILLEGAL if medical studies proved those things did similar things - lead inexorably to disease and death.

As a pragmatist, I can't say, well necrophilia leads to Hepatitis-C in some of those who engage in it, homosexuality to Hepatitis-C and AIDS to some of those who engage in it, and tobacco leads to lung cancer and emphysema to some of those who engage in it, AND THEN take the added and quite retarded step of then saying "So I support banning/criminalizing necrophilia and tobacco, but NOT homosexuality BECAUSE homosexuality is, in effect, too popular to criminalize."

That's utter nonsense!

In fact, the more popular a dangerous behavior is, the more vital banning/criminalizing it is!

That's why I'D support banning/criminalizing NONE of those things based on the evidence that "some of those who engage in those things come down with various diseases."

That (the health effects), as I'd say, is THEIR problem!

I mean "cry me a river," it's not as if we all aren't dying already. We ARE, in fact, all dying with every breath. So some folks engage in things that speed that process up a bit....booo-friggin-hooo.

Let the people be free and let the buyer beware. THAT has been my argument on all such things all along.

I have to agree with JMK, at least on his own views about homosexuality, BlueWind. I did go back to look at some of the JMK posts I could find on that topic and his views here are what they were in all the previous ones I saw.

It seems that you object to the use of the term “deviancy,” and that’s probably because you may have understood that as “perversion,” but that’s just wrong. The two words are not synonyms and they do mean two very distinct things, as JMK states.

But this is part of the reason why I have no desire to stay around here.

No one makes full, consistent arguments to counter JMK and that only makes him look good by default (sorry JMK)...at least when I saw his views on preferences, I did so in a classroom where a number of students and some professors gave fully detailed and logically consistent arguments to counter JMK’s.

I’ve looked over this argument for awhile now and I can’t disagree with at least this part of what JMK said above;

“As a pragmatist, I can't say, well necrophilia leads to Hepatitis-C in some of those who engage in it, homosexuality to Hepatitis-C and AIDS to some of those who engage in it, and tobacco leads to lung cancer and emphysema to some of those who engage in it, AND THEN take the added and quite retarded step of then saying "So I support banning/criminalizing necrophilia and tobacco, but NOT homosexuality BECAUSE homosexuality is, in effect, too popular to criminalize."

That's utter nonsense!

In fact, the more popular a dangerous behavior is, the more vital banning/criminalizing it is!

That's why I'D support banning/criminalizing NONE of those things based on the evidence that "some of those who engage in those things come down with various diseases."

I think that part is well put and JMK’s right, that none of us should want the government micromanaging our lives. We have a right to live, make mistakes, bad choices and succeed or fail as our abilities and opportunities allow us to.

JMK’s adding, “That (the health effects), as I'd say, is THEIR problem!” is why I tend to find conservative ideas too sterile and cold. I understand the logic, and I even agree with the underlying idea that people should not have their lives micromanaged by government...I guess it’s the way they’re couched, from time to time that offends my eye.

I’m glad I’ve looked in on this site (I even bookmarked it) and I’m happy that I was able to be true to my word and tried to make a logical counter-argument to JMK, even though I wound up agreeing to abandon the idea of government intruding by banning any and all substances it deems “unhealthy,” in order to keep government from becoming more intrusive in dealing with safety and security issues (crime & terrorism).

I’m still searching for that Liberal who can make full, reasonable and compelling arguments for that viewpoint and I’ll keep on looking.

"No one makes full, consistent arguments to counter JMK and that only makes him look good by default (sorry JMK)..." (JMK)


I wish I weren't always the ogre here, Susan, but I understand where you're coming from.

You have a good heart.

What you'll find as you get older, I'm sure, is that most self-destructive people (maybe all) CAN'T be "saved from themselves."

The BEST chance they have is through "tough love," whereby family and loved ones "let go and accept," leaving the self-destructive person to suffer the brunt of the repurcussions from their actions.

Folks like BW, see that burden as a collective one. "Why not share the burdens and make them less through that sharing?"

Quite frankly, that is not merely an idiotic idea, but an evil one as well. It's idiotic in that "enabling self-destructive people" only increases their self-destructiveness, thereby constantly increasing the burdens for everyone else and it's evil in that it PUNISHES (via imposing a share of that burden on those who "lived right" and incurred no burden) on the innocent, or non-self-destructive.

Folks like BW haven't really thought that out very deeply.

The sad truth is that most problems are INDIVIDUAL ones and ALL freedom is INDIVIDUAL as well.

You already understand the logic behind why the government CANNOT solve most of our problems, which is only half a step away from Reagan's revelation that "government isn't the solution, government IS the problem."

You already see that "I even agree with the underlying idea that people should not have their lives micromanaged by government," that's why government shouldn't be banning tobacco, trans fat, marijuana, or any of the numerous "dangerous products" it arbitrarily makes "ILLEGAL" by fiat.

While I don't want the government demanding that everyone carry ID and be ready to show it any time, I DO support a far easier, braoder based warrant system for terror suspects, the ability to track all sales of Ammonium Nitrate, bags of ANFO, blasting caps, the many precursors to chemical and biological weapons, etc. The people who have cause to purchase such things have nothing to worry about, while those who'd use thse things for illicit purposes (unconventional warfare) SHOULD worry...a LOT!

I appreciaate your thinking about this conundrum thoughtfully and purposefully, just as you thought about preferences the same way.

You're an independent thinker, not inclined to reflexively support a set ideology and that trait will stand you in good stead.