Slashdot Mirror

The danger of cigarettes is not the nicotine. It's the smoke. Smoking nicotine-less cigarettes could still give you cancer. Chewing nicotine gum probably won't.

Reason Magazine has a pretty interesting article ("Snuff Treatment: Lying in the name of public health") about the US gub'mint lying to us about the dangers of chewing tabacco. Even though it is 90% less hazardous than cigarette smoking, numerous US health agencies repeatedly claim chewing tabacco is "just as dangerous" as smoking cigarettes.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

(Quoted from your article:)
By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand.

So, Wal-Mart demonstrates that Vlasic pickles aren't worth quite as much as Vlasic claims, and we're supposed to pity Vlasic and their investment in marketing, and scold Wal-Mart for acting in self-interest? Now that's laughable.

As a source of mass employment, we have moved from agriculture, to manufacturing, and now into aesthetics. It is not that agriculture has disappeared from the US, but it is down to about 3% of the economy.

Peter Bagge has a funny comic on this theme.

They are not actually fighting for the rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; they are redefining them as they see fit.

our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?
Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree.

You mean to say, "...are the two most-cited books supporting the theory that firearms decrease crime", do you not?

Surely you don't intend to suggest that there are no detailed, well-reasoned books and papers to support the contrary hypothesis...?

I'm pretty sure that it was the intent of the author of Crazy Ideas to indicate that there is much ballyhooed research on both sides of the issue, and that the thinking and methods on both sides is often rather sloppy. (John Lott, I note, is not above such concerns.)

but the man himself denied it vigoursly.

Doesn't mean he's telling the truth. People lie all the time. Especially when that emotionally invested in a subject.

Great artists hate to have to explain their works. They feel that if they admit "Yeah, it's an allegory, and A represents B" then they've given up their secrets, and surrendered to Sam Goldwyn.

The only reason anyone cares about doing computerized voting is because the companies that make voting machines want us to care. After the 2000 debacle, Diebold and others jumped on the opportunity to tell us how screwed up our voting system is and that voting with their crappy Windows CE and Access database would somehow solve the problem. The problems surrounding Florida and the 2000 election really had little to do with dangling chads and more to do with voter fraud and disenfranchisement. More about disenfranchised voters here and here.

The corporations that seek to make millions upon millions of dollars selling computerized voting machines are feeding our cultural desire for everything to be fast and computerized. They know we don't want to wait two or three days to have all the votes tallied by volunteers - that's just backwards. We need to use computers to do all that counting because that's what computers do well - counting that is. As usual we are solving the wrong problem with the wrong solution. There is no reason we can't vote with pencil and paper and have our votes counted and with proper exit polling we would know the winner of the horse race the same day. In a close race the results may not be certain for a couple of days, is that so aweful to wait 2 or 3 days to find out the winner and be certain he/she is in fact the winner.

We are so fickle in this country and have such a short attention span that we become easy prey for the corporations that seek to make millions and millions of dollars selling districts these inferior voting machines/computers that simply don't work and seem to invite fraud. Can we have a healthy democracy if we don't have a voting system that is accurate and can be trusted? I don't understand people who so quickly toss democracy into the gutter for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security, I think it's insulting to all the men and women who have died to protect our democracy. Let's get the voting process right in this country or we are going to be in serious trouble very quickly. All the people that were pissed after the 2000 debacle may not just sit on their hands next time and so oh well.

Read more about this topic here here and here. This is a serious problem that we can't just sit by and watch play itself out - get involved.

• Atkins Diet Alert, from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
• The Guardian: Atkins diet is 'pseudo-science', say experts
• Big Fat Fake: The Atkins diet controversy and the sorry state of science journalism
• Atkins diet banned in Scottish hospitals

I doubt it. Check out

ACLU policy statement #47:

The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting.

While

NAMBLA may extol conduct which is currently illegal, its materials fall far short of speech that may be prohibited. If that rule were to be changed to allow a suit like this one, it would introduce a regime of conformity to majority rule that would threaten the very right to dissent."

In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA

While intent on pressing their suit against NAMBLA, the Curley family has acknowledged ACLU's concerns. In a Boston Globe article which appeared shortly after the ACLU entered the case, Jeffrey Curley's father, Bob Curley, is quoted as saying that he harbors no ill feelings toward the ACLU for defending the case. "I really do have respect for them (ACLU)", said Curley. "They are very consistent in whom they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage."

Wired puts a different spin on it:

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions.

But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.

In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessaril

Since we're all suspected terrorists anyway.

(Also this is a very good follow-up read if you're interested. This has also been posted on /. before (link). And there's also more links.)

I, for one, welcome our new Ashcroft overlords.

DeanSpace development comunity - Website : http://DeanSpace.org
Articles: http://drupal.org/node/view/2267
Wired News http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59497,00 .html
Dan Gillmore http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/650 1101.htm
Reason Online http://www.reason.com/links/links081303.shtml
Hesie Online (german) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-26.08.03-00 1/

Look forward to a lifetime of high cholesterol, kidney stones, osteoporosis and increased risk of bowel cancer. Not to mention the fact that the Atkins diet is so restrictive as to be completely unpalatable. Although eating only low-carb foods like meat and eggs sounds good in theory, in practice very few people have the willpower to stay on a "pure" Atkins diet. This is partly because carbs are an important part of the diet (and taste good) and partly because ketosis is an unnatural state for the body to be in for long periods of time (greater than 6 monhs) as the body is "digesting" itself to produce fuel.

You betray an astounding ignorance about low-carb diets with this here tripe.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a plan, but to wax didactic about it; educate yourself.

Atkins is not terribly restrictive. It is not meat and eggs. It lowers dangerous cholesterol levels.
You mention a "pure" Atkins diet with an obvious lack of what that actually is.

One does eat carbohydrates on any low-carb diet. Ketosis is a early, short-term goal, and effects of non-diabetics remaining in ketosis have not been found to be negative. If one ingests enough fat, ketosis burns that fat and stored body fat as a fuel source, which is the objective early in the plan.

http://www.countcarbs.com/advice/LCG_Myth_Reality_ Ketosis.htm

http://www.immuneweb.org/lowcarb/faq/myths.html

Then individuals are encouraged to increase their carbohydrate intake as they move forward. Even in the beginning one is recommended to eat 20 grams of carbohydrates a day.

Dr. Atkins did not suffer poor health, and his death had nothing to do with his diet.

In terms of Fumento; I find his writings a joke. Taubes' article interested me in giving this plan a shot...not a diet, but a plan of eating for a lifetime. In hunting down info before starting, I cam across a rebuttal by Fumento of the original article. I had been ill-disposed towards low-carb plans prior to reading Taubes article, so I was not predisposed to believe anyone.

Fumento's article was terrible. I noticed it as I was reading. He uses colorful, reactionary language, but little logic, and little reference or attribution. Luckily, the place I read it also included Taubes answer to Fumento's article.

I suggest you (or anyone who is interested) read the entire dialogue:

Taubes' original article here.

Fumento's rebuttal:
http://reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

Taubes' response (also linked from the previous page):
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml

Look forward to a lifetime of high cholesterol, kidney stones, osteoporosis and increased risk of bowel cancer. Not to mention the fact that the Atkins diet is so restrictive as to be completely unpalatable. Although eating only low-carb foods like meat and eggs sounds good in theory, in practice very few people have the willpower to stay on a "pure" Atkins diet. This is partly because carbs are an important part of the diet (and taste good) and partly because ketosis is an unnatural state for the body to be in for long periods of time (greater than 6 monhs) as the body is "digesting" itself to produce fuel.

You betray an astounding ignorance about low-carb diets with this here tripe.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a plan, but to wax didactic about it; educate yourself.

Atkins is not terribly restrictive. It is not meat and eggs. It lowers dangerous cholesterol levels.
You mention a "pure" Atkins diet with an obvious lack of what that actually is.

One does eat carbohydrates on any low-carb diet. Ketosis is a early, short-term goal, and effects of non-diabetics remaining in ketosis have not been found to be negative. If one ingests enough fat, ketosis burns that fat and stored body fat as a fuel source, which is the objective early in the plan.

http://www.countcarbs.com/advice/LCG_Myth_Reality_ Ketosis.htm

http://www.immuneweb.org/lowcarb/faq/myths.html

Then individuals are encouraged to increase their carbohydrate intake as they move forward. Even in the beginning one is recommended to eat 20 grams of carbohydrates a day.

Dr. Atkins did not suffer poor health, and his death had nothing to do with his diet.

In terms of Fumento; I find his writings a joke. Taubes' article interested me in giving this plan a shot...not a diet, but a plan of eating for a lifetime. In hunting down info before starting, I cam across a rebuttal by Fumento of the original article. I had been ill-disposed towards low-carb plans prior to reading Taubes article, so I was not predisposed to believe anyone.

Fumento's article was terrible. I noticed it as I was reading. He uses colorful, reactionary language, but little logic, and little reference or attribution. Luckily, the place I read it also included Taubes answer to Fumento's article.

I suggest you (or anyone who is interested) read the entire dialogue:

Taubes' original article here.

Fumento's rebuttal:
http://reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

Taubes' response (also linked from the previous page):
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml

The Dead made plenty of money, are very business-savvy, and are actually fiercely protective of their IP. You can trade recordings, just not sell them.

Wiggum: Now, what I am about to show you next may shock and educate you. Hold onto your values as we step through the looking glass into a hippie pot party.

[flicks a switch, lighting a mannequin with a joint crudely stuck to his mouth]

While Johnny Welfare plays acid rock on a stolen guitar, his old lady has a better idea.

[lights up another mannequin, of a woman opening wide to eat a baby sandwich. (That's a sandwich with a baby in it, not a really tiny sandwich.) The crowd gasps]

That's right, she's got the "munchies" for a California Cheeseburger. -- http://reason.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2311

I think Arnold may make the best candidate because he's a businessman, has been extraordinarily successful compared to most people who go into business and he's got the appearance of a genuine and warm personality that makes him look much more like a straight shooter. He's closer to the center than most, and as Reason Online's writers have pointed out, he's got many good points going for him.

I am a Southerner, and for lack of a better political label I am closer to a libertarian socialist than a libertarian capitalist on most issues. These are what I think are wrong with Georgy's positions.

• The Death Penalty is Evil and Expensive(tm). Right, and locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life like a circus animal or zoo exhibit is more humane? I'd much rather get executed than imprisoned for life. Life imprisonment, not execution, is cruel and unusual.
• Tax increases are needed. No, what you need is a tax system that is very easy to force near 100% accountability on. It is easier to predict the future through tarot cards and reading tea leaves than calculate what the rich and middle class owe in a modern income tax system. Get rid of the income tax and raise excise taxes. Introduce a flat corporate income tax of say.... 2.5% for businesses based in CA and 5% for those that just do a lot of business there.
• Protect the social programs. How about you stop competing with private charities? The people who work for them are more dedicated because most of them are doing the same work as government bureacrats, but for free or little compensation. Americans already give around $300B a year in charitable donations. Imagine what that would be if there was no income tax and welfare state.
• Universal Healthcare is necessary. No it isn't. If you are going to do a socialized medicare system, the better way to do it rather pay for everybody's healthcare is to evaluate every citizen's income and give it only to those whose income couldn't buy private insurance. Many in the lower class could afford insurance, if they stopped buying luxury items like controlled substances, IP, cable tv and internet access. It's a matter of priority.
• Gays should be allowed to marry. I agree in principle, but not on the basis of "equality." Marriage should be a title like Mr. or Mrs. in the eyes of the state, not a special license. I don't think that letting two men or women raise a heterosexual child is going to be very bad, it's not entirely desirable, but I do think that if we open the door to "alternatives" like polygamy then we are in danger. The only logistical problem I see with "damage to the family" from gay marriage is that kids are probably better off with parents of both genders. For example, girls need a mother to show them how to be a woman by example and a good father figure to show them what to look for in and expect from a man. Most of the girls I've know that fit that description date decent guys, the ones that don't date men that are at best described eventually once they get to know them as tee-total assholes.
• Legalize Marijuana. Why stop there? The best way to help minorities is to take away the easy cash that comes from being able to sell illegal drugs. Legal drugs are cheaper, safer and very difficult for criminals to take advantage of for huge profit. Oh and did I mention it's good for national security?

Just a little critique from an outsider.

This reminds me of a recent article about an internet millionaire who is sueing the government regarding privacy issues while flying. I think it is great that we techies are finally getting a voice in the government. Hopefully some of the issues we have been worried about, (patents, trademark, copyright, privacy, etc.) will begin to change.

In what way does it manifest silliness? It would seem to me to be a case entirely free from vapid claims of validity (microsoft hit with a full court press, and lost) or infringement (likewise, microsoft threw full guns at it, and lost).

To the contrary, the case shows the seriousness of these law and their claims when properly applied.

It shows silliness because of the content of the patent. This isn't something non-obvious or hard to research. It's plugins! It's like patenting vulcanization and then suing every tire manufacturer after they've been doing it for years. That is the silliness.

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

Nobody said all patents were a bad idea, please pay attention. This is a software patent. There has been every indication that software patents have actually hurt the computing industry in this country and slowed innovation. Then, of course, the fact that we are talking about a specific class of frivolous patents that have prior art but were granted anyway.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.

Again, we are talking about a specific set of frivolous patents, so yes there is alot of evidence that they hurt innovation.

If you say so. Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

Talk about presenting evidence to backup your claims ....

This reply is not directed at you, but is made for the benefit of those who--unlike you--develop their political opinions based on things other than late-night talk-show monologues:

I was not inclined to support Schwarzenegger until I read this article...now may have to rethink my position

Essentially, the Atkins' diet has not been scientifically shown to reduce weight more than any other diet of equivalent calorie intake has since its inception in the 1970s.

Essentially, the Atkins' diet has not been scientifically shown to reduce weight more than any other diet of equivalent calorie intake has since its inception in the 1970s.

Essentially, the Atkins' diet has not been scientifically shown to reduce weight more than any other diet of equivalent calorie intake has since its inception in the 1970s.

The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.

The problem with anti-2nd Amendment folks who point to the "well-regulated" portion of the amendment, is that they don't know what "well-regulated" meant when used back then. It has nothing to do with government regulation. It means properly functioning.

From Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton (talking about the problems of maintaining a standing army):

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

That is, having a certain "degree of perfection" in "going through military exercises and evolutions" entitle them to the character of a "well-regulated militia." A "well-regulated" militia is one that can shoot straight.

Your "guns were rare in Colonial America" sounds like you're getting your info (directly or indirectly) from Michael Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which has been pretty thoroughly debunked, so I'm not going to go into the details here. Best place to start is this article in Reason magazine.

In addition to publishing Reason magazine, the Reason Foundation supports a lot of public policy studies through the Reason Public Policy Institute, which is basically a libertarian-leaning think-tank. It's not surprising they'd have a postltion on this issue; they have a position on every transportation-related issue one could imagine, and Poole is probably more politically savvy than most of the other signatories.

Here's the RPPI's take on general transportation, and surface transportation.

Off topic, but also note this interesting article regarding some negative consequences of the movie on Escalante's career.

I also don't agree with him lying the the nations of the world either (esspecially in a way that makes them feel as though they are in mortal danger)

Name ONE nation that didn't believe that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. If you can, provide a link to where they stated it.

According to our own legal system, if I tell someone to kill you, and they do, then I am guilty of murdering you, regardless of whether or not I'm even on the same planet as you, and it would be accurate to say that I murdered you. In the same way, if Osama bin Laden tells some guys to kill people, and they do, then he is guilty of murdering them, and it would be accurate to say that Osama bin Laden murdered those people.

I was patronizing you.

Actually it was stated by, "a former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday"

Correct... With information coming from ... THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT. And I quote:

The problem with many of the most frequently cited studies is that they rely primarily on official Iraqi information sources. The 1995 FAO study contains a table reporting more than 500,00 deaths among children due to sanctions, but the source for these figures is the government of Iraq.

The study also contains an estimate by the Itaqi Ministry of Health that 109,000 people died annually because of sanctions, but it observes that the study's investigators "had no way of confirming this figure."

See here also.

You would believe the Iraqi government after the Iraqi Information Minister? Are you nuts? I suppose the Iraqi military is going to slaughter us now...

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. They developed a system, and now have a monopoly on their system. You want one? Fine - design your own.

If it's their system, then why do patent protections run out? You don't suddenly stop owning your car after 5 years. Ideas can't be owned.

Also, it's probably costing the economy billions upon billions of dollars for these people to have their monopoly. It's inefficient and state granted.

Here are some good papers on exactly how economically inefficient patents are. Their arguments are somewhat different from mine.

• Boldrin & Levine: Case Against Intellectual Monopoly
• The Theory of Innovation without Intellectual Monopoly
• And, and article in that bastion of rationality, "Reason": Creation Myths does innovation require intellectual property rights?

All, hard, well thought ought analysis of why IP in general is a bad idea, and why patents actually stifle innovation instead of encourage it.

Yeah, and that's why video sucks so badly under Linux.

Funny, it's fine for me, even Windows Media files.

Yeah, and you are technically infrining on several patents using half those programs. Fear of liability is why RedHat doesn't bundle mplayer with their system. The only reason those programs exist is because their existence serves other purposes of the creators of the format, and there's nobody with deep enough pockets to be worth suing.

Unacceptable to whom? Plenty of startups have managed to create something worthwhile, and benefit from patent protection for it. (Tivo, Real.)

And, just how much have they been actually helped by their patents? It's not as if ReplayTV didn't also exist. Also seems to me that Real's patents have actually hurt them. They'd have widespread adoption if it weren't for patents. They'd be able to make a ton more money installing and setting up servers for people.

Yeah, the atkins diet, because it's totally *not* bullshit!

Maybe you should read more about it.

Of course, if Dvorak works for you (and many people report that the change reduces their RSI) then keep using it.

2. Penguin Patrol

Someone in Redmond has a wicked sense of humor -- and timing. Just after the SCO Group got done sending letters to 1,350 users of the Linux operating system warning them that "Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights" and that "legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user," Microsoft decided, gee, let's license some SCO Group software. In one delicious move, Microsoft has in effect hired its old antitrust nemesis, David Boies, to go to work beating Linux competitors off its Windows server installs.

The SCO Group had selected Boies to research an intellectual property case that many in the software industry felt was bogus -- nothing more than a last-ditch attempt by a failing software company to shake some cash from the trees. Sure enough, the SCO Group sued IBM in March, charging unfair competition and breach of contract.

Now, with Redmond lining up behind SCO and Boies, IBM must be just thrilled. For a tiny investment Microsoft gets to make potential corporate buyers of Linux, or IBM's operating system AIX, worry about getting dragged in court over the software running in their back office. The message is clear: Buy Windows, stay out of court.

Of course, this is why it was a horribly bad idea for Netscape and friends to run to the feds and the state attorneys general over Microsoft Internet Explorer way back in the day. Make politicians, lawyers, and judges the arbiters of good software, and you'll get software as buggy as the law.

2. Penguin Patrol

Someone in Redmond has a wicked sense of humor -- and timing. Just after the SCO Group got done sending letters to 1,350 users of the Linux operating system warning them that "Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights" and that "legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user," Microsoft decided, gee, let's license some SCO Group software. In one delicious move, Microsoft has in effect hired its old antitrust nemesis, David Boies, to go to work beating Linux competitors off its Windows server installs.

The SCO Group had selected Boies to research an intellectual property case that many in the software industry felt was bogus -- nothing more than a last-ditch attempt by a failing software company to shake some cash from the trees. Sure enough, the SCO Group sued IBM in March, charging unfair competition and breach of contract.

Now, with Redmond lining up behind SCO and Boies, IBM must be just thrilled. For a tiny investment Microsoft gets to make potential corporate buyers of Linux, or IBM's operating system AIX, worry about getting dragged in court over the software running in their back office. The message is clear: Buy Windows, stay out of court.

Of course, this is why it was a horribly bad idea for Netscape and friends to run to the feds and the state attorneys general over Microsoft Internet Explorer way back in the day. Make politicians, lawyers, and judges the arbiters of good software, and you'll get software as buggy as the law.

Just came across a good article which explains some of the issues, here at Reason Online.

A quote: the journos were "..trying to enter the U.S. the same way European journalists have been coming for the last 17 years: on the Visa Waiver program, which allows the citizens of 27 friendly countries (from Andorra to Switzerland) to visit the States up to 90 days without a visa, as long as the trip is for "business or pleasure." Journalism, according to American consular writ, does not qualify as either."

Kass argues that even "modest enhancers" who say that they "merely want to improve our capacity to resist and prevent diseases, diminish our propensities for pain and suffering, decrease the likelihood of death" are deceiving themselves and us. Behind these modest goals, he says, actually lies a utopian project to achieve "nothing less than a painless, suffering-free, and, finally, immortal existence."

The Battle for Your Brain Science is developing ways to boost intelligence, expand memory, and more. But will you be allowed to change your own mind? interesting article about neuroscience

Well, it wasn't too hard to find something via google:

Reason Magazine came up towards the top of my search.

That article has lots of good info.

You do realize that what is so called "lost to bereaucracy" is actually spent on salaries [...]

It's still a loss, because government isn't producing this "wealth". It is simply taking it from one segment that actually produces it, and shifts it to other people. Sure, some people get paid with that "overhead" but government has no incentive to be efficient in its operations, because it's guaranteed its income - it's the law. That's a loss right there - inefficiency. In the private sector it's, "you snooze you lose". If we stopped the redistribution of wealth, 1) the people being taken from would have more money to invest in whatever it is that's making them profitable to begin with, 2) the subsidized would fail, creating an area for a more effective replacement to come in, and 3) the gov't workers would be back in the private sector pool creating wealth rather than being a drain on it.

For example, a road expansion [...]

Road expansion is a valid service of government, though. It is a true public service in that it serves the public as a whole, not a specific subset of the public.

Tax Cuts are great if you are taking in too much money, and want to allow the economy to step it up even more, but they aren't as good as targeted spending in the short term.

Bollocks. Even if you are right in what "stimulates the economy" more, you're answering the wrong question. The question isn't simply about stimulating the economy. The question is should government be meddling in the economy to begin with? What right does gov't have to take from one and give to another? Why must I pay for "targetted spending" somewhere else? Even if "the economy" of the country benefits, what right do you (as an individual) have to take my money for your own gain? Answer: none. And you can't give gov't a right you don't have, meaning it has no right to take my money for someone else's benefit, either.

You may legitimately tax me for things that truly benefit us all, like defense, roads, etc. But it's not right to tax me so that Acme Inc has a healthier bottom line which raises the GDP. That connection to me is too remote to be considered "public good". You're really taxing me to help Acme's owners (or whatever other small group is the recipient of your targetted spending), and that's not right.

To make it more concrete, as "money" is a rather abstract concept, think about actual property ownership. Was it right that Donald Trump tried to have Atlantic City evict an old woman and condemn her house so that he could expand a casino? Sure, gov't can use eminent domain in cases where there is a genuine interest for the public good - but this was not one of those cases. It was pure transfer of property from one to another, using gov't as an intermediary in the theft. The normal person would look at that and say, "Why that's blatant abuse of the system!" Even if the argument was that a casino would yield more tax revenue to the city than a home, and that in turn would benefit the entire city - it's not right. It only directly benefits Donald Trump. And why should we treat money (which can be taken by force through taxes) any different than physical property (taken by force through eminent domain)? Government was instituted to protect our life, liberty, and property, not to aid and abet those who would like to steal it.

Lovely. let freedom ring by hacking any news outlet that doesn't toe the Pentagon party line. Go America.

It's hard to pretend that Al Jazeera is unbiased, but it's also hard to pretend that there has ever been unbiased news coverage. Thanks to the web, we can easily create "compsite" news coverage for ourselves, by taking in various biases, which works like shining a flashlight on something from various angles: eventually, you'll have seen most of it. or at least it allows me to satiate my desire to think I'm getting a somewhat accurate picture of what's happening.

Reason online had this great article about the role of al jazeera in this conflict the other day. worth a read.

VERY INTERESTING link: perspective from within Lebanon.
They see it partly as a blood-feud between the Georges, and Hussein.

Very interesting perspective, that, which makes the observation that:
George Bush's threatening Iraq with nukes, undoing the UN, claiming God, and calling Iran ( who was actively assisting America, at the time ) Evil, is George Bush's Jihad.
.. sensible.

The issue here is about moving forward. Was there a problem with access to finance in 1969? Absolutely. And it was an embarassment 33 years ago.

In practice, our economy has come a long way. I think it is no longer clear that financial services for the poor are more exploitive than financial services to the rich.

Reason (admittedly a bunch of libertarians) argues that there is a legitimate need for this type of service.

I believe that if there is a market, greedy people will rush in.

-m

I already subscribe to Reason, but you can give it a try with a free sample issue (as usual, if you don't like it, just write "cancel" on the bill). Their archive also has the full text from all issues up to Jan 2003, in case you're undecided about subscribing.

Now if only their page (or their staff blog) were more Plucker friendly ;). (Plucker is a free offline web browser for Palm)

I already subscribe to Reason, but you can give it a try with a free sample issue (as usual, if you don't like it, just write "cancel" on the bill). Their archive also has the full text from all issues up to Jan 2003, in case you're undecided about subscribing.

Now if only their page (or their staff blog) were more Plucker friendly ;). (Plucker is a free offline web browser for Palm)

...were expressed well in a Reason Magazine interview some years ago.

Reason magazine is the official publication of the Reason Foundation, essentially a Libertarian think tank. The article isn't online yet, but it will be sometime within the next month.

FWIW, even as a Libertarian who is distressed by the way copyrights and patents are abused, I don't buy their conclusions for (say) the pharmaceutical industry, in which the indivisibility of research cost, the practically zero marginal cost of production, and the commoditized nature of cures for a particular illness make a stronger argument for patents and artificial monopoly as incentive for innovation than, say, copyright does as incentive for the next Britney Spears album.

To me it is folly to tie the health effects of tobacco, good or bad, with public policy.

Individuals should be free to smoke, but be held responsible for the natural consequences. This holds for "good tobacco" or "bad tobacco", as well as other drugs.

(Full disclosure: Non-smoker. Ex-smoker, but not against smoking where permitted by property owners.)

Read it here! This is Funny...

What I can never get over is how incredibly inexpensive it is for these companies to massively influence legislation. From another excellent Reason article, linked from that marsupial interview:

...the company exploited its connections to get the copyright extension passed. The very day Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott became a co-sponsor of the bill, the Center for Responsive Politics reports, the Disney Political Action Committee donated $1,000 to his campaign chest; within a month, it had also sent $20,000 in soft money to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Say it with me in your best Dr. Evil accent: "One *thousand* dollars!". And from Disney's bank account? Boy, that's gotta smart. For that matter, why are the legislators and parties affected in the least by these paltry sums? They may not be paid huge salaries, but they can't be that broke. If this is all it takes to get laws passed, perhaps all we need to do is take up a collection. Even I can afford $1000 for some juicy bill.

(The same thing impressed me with the Salt Lake City / IOC scandal - so you can get your own Olympics for a few pizzas now?).

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing
  
  

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  
  
  

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

  
  
  
• Exposure
  
  

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

  
  
  
• Accounts
  
  

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  
  
  

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

  
  
  
• Layout
  
  

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

  
  
  
• Size
  
  

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

  
  
  
• Spelling
  
  

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

  
  
  
• Subject
  
  

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

  
  
  
• Style
  
  

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

  
  
  
• Linking
  
  

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

  
  
  
• Feeding
  
  

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

  
  
  
• Know your audience
  
  

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

  
  
  
• Arrogance
  
  

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

  
  
  
• Offensiveness
  
  

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations
  about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

  
  
  
• Indifference
  
  

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

  
  
  
• Sympathy
  
  

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

  
  
  
• The common touch
  
  

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

  
  
  
• The 31337 touch
  
  

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to
  understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

  
  
  
• Contradiction
  
  

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  
  
  

  Clues
  
  

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

  
  
  
• Denial
  
  

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

  
  
  
• Claiming credit
  
  

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  
  
  

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  
  
  

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

  
  
  
• Ending the troll
  
  

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

  
  
  
• The cheap $3 crack
  
  

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

  
  
  

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac
   
   

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous
   extremes.

   
   
   

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   
   
   

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   
   
   
   • The right-wing
     
     

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

     
     
     
   • Religion
     
     

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

     
     
     
   • Ideology
     
     

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

     
     
     
   • Software
     
     

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything),
     application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

     
     
     
   • Guns
     
     

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

     
     
     
   
   
   
2. The Expert
   
   

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   
   
   

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   
   
   
   • Industry knowledge
     
     

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

     
     
     
   • Helpful hints
     
     

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

     
     
     
   
   
   
3. Offtopic Trolls
   
   

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   
   
   

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   
   
   
   1. The serial troll
      
      

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

      
      
      
   2. The random troll
      
      

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

      
      
      
   3. The vaguely related troll
      
      

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

      
      
      
   
   
   

   General tips:

   
   
   
   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
     
     
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
     
     
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
     
     
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)
     
     
   
   
   

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   
   
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
     
     
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
     
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
     
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
     
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
     
     
   
   
   
2. Religious links
   
   
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
     
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
     
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
     
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
     
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
     
     
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
     
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
     
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
     
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
     
     
   
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   
   
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
     
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
     
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
     
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
     
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
     
     
   
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   
   
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
     
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
     
     
   
   
   

Let me see if I have this straight.

The government that brought us arms sales to Iran's Ayatollah, supported al Queda et al when it was Russia they were fighting, funded CIA-trained death squads in South America, that has killed a million-plus Iraqi children with their embargo (and noted "we think the price is worth it"), who have so far provded Turkey with $15B (yes, billions) worth of weapons and training to fight the Northern Kurds (who the U.S. claims to be protecting from Saddam) ...this is the same government which claims to want to protect my child (yes, I have one) from the implication of violence?

If I want to keep my daughter away from violence, I think my best bet is to turn off the nightly news and give her permission to skip history class.