Dear sir, I seem to consistently have a hard time squaring the Libertarian philosophy with the realities of the world we live in.
My belief is that Libertarianism appeals so strongly to Americans because we live in the land of plenty. Libertarianism is a very convenient political philosophy to have if you live in a country with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and the world's largest military to maintain the hegemony.
In other words, if the cards are already stacked in your favor, yeah a "free market" is a good thing. Pay no attention to the slave labor who built this country or the former inhabitants who have mostly been ethnically cleansed.
Is Libertarianism really only appropriate for rich, "developed" countries such as the United States?
And please set me straight regarding what I see as pie-in-the-sky talk of "free markets." It might be true that free markets will result in competition and benefits for the consumer. But we will simply never know that. Look at all the barriers to free trade in our country and throughout the world. Those will not simply be swept away as cobwebs before a broom. And yet, Libertarianism seems particularly regulation-hostile, which makes me wonder if you think Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was merely Communist propaganda of a hundred years ago.
I think an illustrative example would be the Enron or WorldCom bubbles. Both of those, you may agree, stemmed from some degree of deregulation in the market. And yet where is the payoff? It's in the offshore accounts of a handful of oligarchs. Now, you might argue that the method of deregulation was flawed, but the primacy of human greed cannot simply be "explained away" because regulators set the game in motion with poorly devised initial conditions. How can you be sure future deregulation won't be so disastrous? (It should be obvious, I'll trust my essential servcies like water and power to a bumbling government bureaucracy working for everyone over a cutthroat profit-driven corporation working for shareholders any day.)
From what I can determine, Libertarianism embraces the central tenets of Capitalism -- that people are lazy, and that people are greedy. I ask you: Are those really healthy core values to be driving your politics?
Finally I do wish you luck on achieving critical mass and taking over one of the smaller state legislatures. Better we perform our experiments in Capitalism on our own people than our unfortunate subjects in Iraq.
I just wanted to share this message to the Libertarians who read these pages:
Libertarianism is a very convenient political philosophy to have if you live in a country with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and the world's largest military to maintain the hegemony.
In other words, if the cards are already stacked in your favor, yeah a "free market" is a good thing. Nevermind the slave labor who built this country or the former inhabitants who have mostly been ethnically cleansed.
For every winner, there's got to be a loser. Libertarian reader, you are like George Bush: Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
Fine, so you won't be able to get those images from US-based satellite imaging companies.
Non-Government customers for this data will simply spend their dollars in another country. US-based companies may want to consider relocating to an environment less hostile to their business.
The only people negatively affected by this rule are the American people.
In my experience less than 5% of the populous knows about the nightmare of civil forfeiture laws and other abuses of the War on Drugs, such as arresting your money, and insanely open-ended "expert" profiles which are the pretext to hold literally anyone they choose.
Wait, are you the AC who posted the grandparent comment? Maybe I should give Bush a lesson on how to "smoke 'em out."
I don't know where you get the idea that Moqtada al Sadr was one of "Saddam's guys" but it's absolutely not the case, and I challenge you to present one shred of evidence to the contrary.
How about highlighting the wholesale corruption of the UN with money Saddam stole from his starving people? You mean the same UN that Saddam defied, providing the pretext for war? I'm confused is the UN "good" or "evil?"
How about a story on the infiltration of Palestinian and other terrorist groups into university campuses, like Sami al Arian? How about a story on the infiltration of Zionist operatives (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz) into senior DoD positions?
How about a story on how the Iraqi guerillas seem more interested in killing Iraqis and destroying the country's infrastructure than fighting the so-called "occupation"? How about a story highlighting Saddam's ability to immasculate those same guerillas and keep his country unified in the face of devastating economic sanctions and weekly U.S. and U.K. bombings?
How about a story on how there has been a grand total of ONE suicide bombing since Israel began to really crack down on terror and start working on real anti-terrorist measures? How about a story on the sharp increase in Israeli violence and civilian casualties in Palestine as a result of these measures?
How about a story on the continuing anti-Semitism accepted and promoted in the Muslim world? How about a story on those "liberal" French banning Muslim garb? How about a story on illegal Orthodox Jewish Israeli settlers moving in and terrorizing their Palestinian neighbors in Gaza and the West Bank under cover of the IDF?
How about a story on how things like the Kyoto agreement end up being crap because some countries with higher populations than America are allowed to pollute all they want because of some politically-correct guilt trip written into the agreement? How about a story reminding us that the 6% of the world's population in the U.S. are still responsible for 25% of the world's greenhous gas emissions, and are still the world's largest polluters, both per capita and in sheer number?
Naw. You'd never see stories like that in this leftist screed. It's a free country. I encourage you to put together your own "Top 25" under-reported stories. By the way I propose Reagan's funeral for such a list, that was parctically ignored by those dirty leftists running the Press.
Honestly, I am getting sick and tired of the shrill conspiracy rhetoric.
It's not a conspiracy. It's just that news, like anything else, has to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to sell.
It's not the best *product* that wins. It's the product that is best *marketed.* Marketing people have known this for at least 100 years. What's happening now is that the same mechanism used to sell Tylenol or Right Guard or Microsoft is now selling you your news coverage, political candidates, and opinions.
There's nothing shrill or conspiritorial about it at all. Quite the contrary, it's the ultimate truimph of an economic and political system which relies on fear and greed to be its primary motivators.
Just got my ACLU membership renewal in the mail and I won't be re-upping. I'm all for freedom of speech and the press. However, I'm also for the right to privacy. I can't understand why the ACLU will fight for a guy that doesn't want to give his identification just to travel on a plane (which I agree with) yet protect these people whose sole intent is to harass people involved in our democratic process. If you don't think this is intended as harassment, read the web page:
For starters, the content in question falls far, far short of the Nuremberg Files, which is protected speech, even though it lists the names and addresses of abortion providers, and crosses them off as they are assassinated.
If you were all for freedom of the speech and the press, you wouldn't have written five paragraphs full of rationalizations and insinuations justifying what the Secret Service has done.
Let me guess: You're the sort of person who has been heard to say: "I'm not a racist, but..."
Reading your diatribe about Kerry and Bush, it becomes obvious that you lack the necessary bandwidth to read the script; rather it's Kerry's bad acting that has turned you off. Kudos, you are a tool.
I hope you someday realize that who wins the election and becomes President of the United States is more important than who wins Best Actor at the Oscars.
In 10 years with computers, which gives experince with devices up to 20 years old, I have seen 1 case of failure in a componant over 3 months old that was not caused (directly or indirectly [0]) by mechanical wear.
That number seems a little low, but generally I agree. Moving parts are always fighting a war of attrition with interia.
I've seen plenty of older (PCI or earlier) video cards thta died on power-up, causing the magic smoke to escape, and modems still seem to be fairly unreliable. And power supplies, though I suppose you could blame the fan.
Contact also wins the award for "Best portrayal of UNIX in a movie."
You're right about the limo, by the way. That's Hollywood for you, specifically the Spielberg Effect. While we're on it, The Minority Report, which sort of qualifies as sci-fi, should have ended with Tom Cruise getting his head blown off.
The only Republicans I know are all voting that way for a fatter wallet. Politics doesn't enter into it. Of course, they get to play now, and we'll all pay later, but so what?
Your time would be much better spent hacking those insecure voting machines come election day. They'll never know what hit 'em. Plus you can do this right in your own precinct. No need to travel to New York, where everything is expensive and the streets smell like pee.
Because Republicans are fascists? (That's only half joking.)
Seriously, though, Bush's attitude is "my way or the highway." This even has some Republicans bristling. Take John McCain for istance. The Democrats are trying to position themselves as the party of inclusion, a party big enough and strong enough for a variety of viewpoints. Most of this is because they had to field a candidate and the Republicans' role is now to march in lock-step with whatever Bush (by which I mean Karl Rove) trots out.
A LOT of Republicans are wondering what happened to fiscal repsonsibility. But you don't hear much about it. It's much safer to attack the external target -- the Democrats than to question the policies of our Great Leader, or the internal workings of your own party.
I don't think it was Democrats who were DDoSing the Al-Jazeera web page at the start of the war. That shut down a legitimate news source, this is simply shutting down a fan site.
Human beings (well, most) have evolved past the necessary level of intelligence to realize, and implement, the principle of mutual respect.
I think if anything, we've evolved to learn that there are times when violence is a more effective, immediate tool to achieve our goals.
Animals don't have wars. Or rather, they don't have the Geneva Convention; "rules" for war. Nor do they have morals. Our "evolution" is that we have rationalized our savagery.
Those who think that electing Kerry will usher in a new era of freedom are fooling themselves
Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not fooling myself. I think that electing Bush will continue the ongoing era of opression. Kerry, not so much. "Bush Lite" is probably a pretty apt description. And the less horrifying choice.
So you're saying all those cops and soldiers will just give up their guns and say "oh well, back to the drawing board" if we somehow decide we don't like our government any more?
I agree that our govenrment is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Just not all people.
How can you keep a straight face and say "the government behaves the way its citizens want it to behave" when the candidate who received a half a million fewer votes won the Presidency?
Do you really believe that, in the absence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end), the entire concept of human rights would diappear, and we would be reduced ape-like interaction (where the most powerful rule over the rest, and nobody questions it)?
On the contrary, I believe that we are already acting this way, just with fancy costumes on, and plenty of shiny things to distract us from the cold hard truth.
I also take issue with your characterization of "ape-like interaction," specifically the part where "nobody questions it." What you've described is more of a hive mentality where all worker bees are loyal to the queen (though some research even casts that blind loyalty into doubt).
Now, when two individuals outside their tribe meet, it is usually (but not always) mutually beneficial for them to behave civilly. There is little risk in being nice, and much greater risk in trying to steal someone's wallet.
Human rights -- I just don't get it. Humans are animals, right? By extension, are there animal rights? Why or why not?
What you call human rights I call an ethical salad with a few moral croutons thrown in. Instead of oil and vinegar, today's salad is dressed with oil and blood.
>>By allowing *any* software to tamper with the firewall, MS has made a mistake.
>You're missing the point. It is not possible for Microsoft to do anything else
Acutally, it would be quite possible. It's a bit of a design flaw in the Windows security model. You know, when you first run XP and you enter your user name, it sets that user up as an Administrator. They could change that...
First of all, I applaud your analysis of both Wired's journalism and the original statistics.
But is statistics the only way? Can every ill health effect be demonstrated via the appropriate confidence interval and a large enough sample size? (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?)
Clearly a jump from 4 to 8 leukemia cases means practically nothing -- statistically. But I don't think it's always good science, esp. when dealing in real-world non-controlled systems with intangible variables, to rely on statistical analysis as the impetus for public policy decisions.
I encourage you to read the Washington Post article I cited (now with extra spaces)
Surprise surprise, all the highly rated posts say "those environmental wackos are at it again" and explain away the correlation with a variety of explanations that we are to accept as givens.
Realize this: There will never be a study "proving" the ill effects of non-ionizing radiation. Why? Find me a control group. You can't, not on this planet. A hundred years ago, when a five watt radio signal broadcast from New York could be heard in Miami, you might have been able to perform this study then. But now we're inundated with non-ionizing radiation, and unless you build a Faraday cage into about ten thousand homes and collect data over twenty years, you will never get "pure" numbers.
Why are you all so reluctant to even entertain the notion that non-ionizing radiation might create a health risk? Are you that in love with broadcast TV and Radio? Based on the attitudes I see here about the MPAA/RIAA, I find that hard to believe. So what is your explanation? A general love of all things electronic? The chance to pass down the mockery you got from the jocks onto the tree-hugging hippies?
I simplly don't understand the attitude most of you put forward regarding this issue. It's reckless and driven by emotion.
But don't worry, even if a study or three come out demonstrating a link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer risk, the EPA will sweep it under the rug when Infinity Broadcasting supresses the evidence under the Bush Administration's Data Quality Act.
"What I don't know can't hurt me" is not a particularly effective survival mechanism. Who knows, maybe we should be buying stock in Reynolds this very minute.
Slashdot Mirror
Come now, youre afraid to clickl papers/ ngage_800x600.jpg
http://www.n-gage.com/downloads/extras/wal
IF you look at the n-gage just right, doesn't it sort of resemble the Goatse hello.jpg?
This picture of the n-gage shows what I'm talking about. (Don't worry it's really a picture of the n-gage. I'm not that bored today)
Thanks to Turdy for this one
Dear sir, I seem to consistently have a hard time squaring the Libertarian philosophy with the realities of the world we live in.
My belief is that Libertarianism appeals so strongly to Americans because we live in the land of plenty. Libertarianism is a very convenient political philosophy to have if you live in a country with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and the world's largest military to maintain the hegemony.
In other words, if the cards are already stacked in your favor, yeah a "free market" is a good thing. Pay no attention to the slave labor who built this country or the former inhabitants who have mostly been ethnically cleansed.
Is Libertarianism really only appropriate for rich, "developed" countries such as the United States?
And please set me straight regarding what I see as pie-in-the-sky talk of "free markets." It might be true that free markets will result in competition and benefits for the consumer. But we will simply never know that. Look at all the barriers to free trade in our country and throughout the world. Those will not simply be swept away as cobwebs before a broom. And yet, Libertarianism seems particularly regulation-hostile, which makes me wonder if you think Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was merely Communist propaganda of a hundred years ago.
I think an illustrative example would be the Enron or WorldCom bubbles. Both of those, you may agree, stemmed from some degree of deregulation in the market. And yet where is the payoff? It's in the offshore accounts of a handful of oligarchs. Now, you might argue that the method of deregulation was flawed, but the primacy of human greed cannot simply be "explained away" because regulators set the game in motion with poorly devised initial conditions. How can you be sure future deregulation won't be so disastrous? (It should be obvious, I'll trust my essential servcies like water and power to a bumbling government bureaucracy working for everyone over a cutthroat profit-driven corporation working for shareholders any day.)
From what I can determine, Libertarianism embraces the central tenets of Capitalism -- that people are lazy, and that people are greedy. I ask you: Are those really healthy core values to be driving your politics?
Finally I do wish you luck on achieving critical mass and taking over one of the smaller state legislatures. Better we perform our experiments in Capitalism on our own people than our unfortunate subjects in Iraq.
I just wanted to share this message to the Libertarians who read these pages:
Libertarianism is a very convenient political philosophy to have if you live in a country with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and the world's largest military to maintain the hegemony.
In other words, if the cards are already stacked in your favor, yeah a "free market" is a good thing. Nevermind the slave labor who built this country or the former inhabitants who have mostly been ethnically cleansed.
For every winner, there's got to be a loser. Libertarian reader, you are like George Bush: Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
Thank you for reading.
Fine, so you won't be able to get those images from US-based satellite imaging companies.
Non-Government customers for this data will simply spend their dollars in another country. US-based companies may want to consider relocating to an environment less hostile to their business.
The only people negatively affected by this rule are the American people.
Amen brother.
In my experience less than 5% of the populous knows about the nightmare of civil forfeiture laws and other abuses of the War on Drugs, such as arresting your money, and insanely open-ended "expert" profiles which are the pretext to hold literally anyone they choose.
Wait, are you the AC who posted the grandparent comment? Maybe I should give Bush a lesson on how to "smoke 'em out."
I don't know where you get the idea that Moqtada al Sadr was one of "Saddam's guys" but it's absolutely not the case, and I challenge you to present one shred of evidence to the contrary.
Just one shred. Is that too much to ask?
How about highlighting the wholesale corruption of the UN with money Saddam stole from his starving people?
You mean the same UN that Saddam defied, providing the pretext for war? I'm confused is the UN "good" or "evil?"
How about a story on the infiltration of Palestinian and other terrorist groups into university campuses, like Sami al Arian?
How about a story on the infiltration of Zionist operatives (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz) into senior DoD positions?
How about a story on how the Iraqi guerillas seem more interested in killing Iraqis and destroying the country's infrastructure than fighting the so-called "occupation"?
How about a story highlighting Saddam's ability to immasculate those same guerillas and keep his country unified in the face of devastating economic sanctions and weekly U.S. and U.K. bombings?
How about a story on how there has been a grand total of ONE suicide bombing since Israel began to really crack down on terror and start working on real anti-terrorist measures?
How about a story on the sharp increase in Israeli violence and civilian casualties in Palestine as a result of these measures?
How about a story on the continuing anti-Semitism accepted and promoted in the Muslim world?
How about a story on those "liberal" French banning Muslim garb? How about a story on illegal Orthodox Jewish Israeli settlers moving in and terrorizing their Palestinian neighbors in Gaza and the West Bank under cover of the IDF?
How about a story on how things like the Kyoto agreement end up being crap because some countries with higher populations than America are allowed to pollute all they want because of some politically-correct guilt trip written into the agreement?
How about a story reminding us that the 6% of the world's population in the U.S. are still responsible for 25% of the world's greenhous gas emissions, and are still the world's largest polluters, both per capita and in sheer number?
Naw. You'd never see stories like that in this leftist screed.
It's a free country. I encourage you to put together your own "Top 25" under-reported stories. By the way I propose Reagan's funeral for such a list, that was parctically ignored by those dirty leftists running the Press.
Honestly, I am getting sick and tired of the shrill conspiracy rhetoric.
It's not a conspiracy. It's just that news, like anything else, has to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to sell.
It's not the best *product* that wins. It's the product that is best *marketed.* Marketing people have known this for at least 100 years. What's happening now is that the same mechanism used to sell Tylenol or Right Guard or Microsoft is now selling you your news coverage, political candidates, and opinions.
There's nothing shrill or conspiritorial about it at all. Quite the contrary, it's the ultimate truimph of an economic and political system which relies on fear and greed to be its primary motivators.
Just got my ACLU membership renewal in the mail and I won't be re-upping. I'm all for freedom of speech and the press. However, I'm also for the right to privacy. I can't understand why the ACLU will fight for a guy that doesn't want to give his identification just to travel on a plane (which I agree with) yet protect these people whose sole intent is to harass people involved in our democratic process. If you don't think this is intended as harassment, read the web page:
For starters, the content in question falls far, far short of the Nuremberg Files, which is protected speech, even though it lists the names and addresses of abortion providers, and crosses them off as they are assassinated.
If you were all for freedom of the speech and the press, you wouldn't have written five paragraphs full of rationalizations and insinuations justifying what the Secret Service has done.
Let me guess: You're the sort of person who has been heard to say: "I'm not a racist, but..."
Reading your diatribe about Kerry and Bush, it becomes obvious that you lack the necessary bandwidth to read the script; rather it's Kerry's bad acting that has turned you off. Kudos, you are a tool.
I hope you someday realize that who wins the election and becomes President of the United States is more important than who wins Best Actor at the Oscars.
In 10 years with computers, which gives experince with devices up to 20 years old, I have seen 1 case of failure in a componant over 3 months old that was not caused (directly or indirectly [0]) by mechanical wear.
:)
That number seems a little low, but generally I agree. Moving parts are always fighting a war of attrition with interia.
I've seen plenty of older (PCI or earlier) video cards thta died on power-up, causing the magic smoke to escape, and modems still seem to be fairly unreliable. And power supplies, though I suppose you could blame the fan.
Does lightning count as "mechanical wear?"
Man, there's no way I have time to watch all ten of these movies.
I want more life, fucker!
Contact also wins the award for "Best portrayal of UNIX in a movie."
You're right about the limo, by the way. That's Hollywood for you, specifically the Spielberg Effect. While we're on it, The Minority Report, which sort of qualifies as sci-fi, should have ended with Tom Cruise getting his head blown off.
The only Republicans I know are all voting that way for a fatter wallet. Politics doesn't enter into it. Of course, they get to play now, and we'll all pay later, but so what?
Amen.
Your time would be much better spent hacking those insecure voting machines come election day. They'll never know what hit 'em. Plus you can do this right in your own precinct. No need to travel to New York, where everything is expensive and the streets smell like pee.
Republicans: Democrats without the guilt.
That's a good one!
Libertarians: Republicans who smoke pot.
Because Republicans are fascists? (That's only half joking.)
Seriously, though, Bush's attitude is "my way or the highway." This even has some Republicans bristling. Take John McCain for istance. The Democrats are trying to position themselves as the party of inclusion, a party big enough and strong enough for a variety of viewpoints. Most of this is because they had to field a candidate and the Republicans' role is now to march in lock-step with whatever Bush (by which I mean Karl Rove) trots out.
A LOT of Republicans are wondering what happened to fiscal repsonsibility. But you don't hear much about it. It's much safer to attack the external target -- the Democrats than to question the policies of our Great Leader, or the internal workings of your own party.
I don't think it was Democrats who were DDoSing the Al-Jazeera web page at the start of the war. That shut down a legitimate news source, this is simply shutting down a fan site.
Human beings (well, most) have evolved past the necessary level of intelligence to realize, and implement, the principle of mutual respect.
I think if anything, we've evolved to learn that there are times when violence is a more effective, immediate tool to achieve our goals.
Animals don't have wars. Or rather, they don't have the Geneva Convention; "rules" for war. Nor do they have morals. Our "evolution" is that we have rationalized our savagery.
Those who think that electing Kerry will usher in a new era of freedom are fooling themselves
Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not fooling myself. I think that electing Bush will continue the ongoing era of opression. Kerry, not so much. "Bush Lite" is probably a pretty apt description. And the less horrifying choice.
So you're saying all those cops and soldiers will just give up their guns and say "oh well, back to the drawing board" if we somehow decide we don't like our government any more?
I agree that our govenrment is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Just not all people.
How can you keep a straight face and say "the government behaves the way its citizens want it to behave" when the candidate who received a half a million fewer votes won the Presidency?
Do you really believe that, in the absence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end), the entire concept of human rights would diappear, and we would be reduced ape-like interaction (where the most powerful rule over the rest, and nobody questions it)?
On the contrary, I believe that we are already acting this way, just with fancy costumes on, and plenty of shiny things to distract us from the cold hard truth.
I also take issue with your characterization of "ape-like interaction," specifically the part where "nobody questions it." What you've described is more of a hive mentality where all worker bees are loyal to the queen (though some research even casts that blind loyalty into doubt).
Now, when two individuals outside their tribe meet, it is usually (but not always) mutually beneficial for them to behave civilly. There is little risk in being nice, and much greater risk in trying to steal someone's wallet.
Human rights -- I just don't get it. Humans are animals, right? By extension, are there animal rights? Why or why not?
What you call human rights I call an ethical salad with a few moral croutons thrown in. Instead of oil and vinegar, today's salad is dressed with oil and blood.
>>By allowing *any* software to tamper with the firewall, MS has made a mistake.
>You're missing the point. It is not possible for Microsoft to do anything else
Acutally, it would be quite possible. It's a bit of a design flaw in the Windows security model. You know, when you first run XP and you enter your user name, it sets that user up as an Administrator. They could change that...
First of all, I applaud your analysis of both Wired's journalism and the original statistics.
3 73 3-2004Aug15.html
But is statistics the only way? Can every ill health effect be demonstrated via the appropriate confidence interval and a large enough sample size? (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?)
Clearly a jump from 4 to 8 leukemia cases means practically nothing -- statistically. But I don't think it's always good science, esp. when dealing in real-world non-controlled systems with intangible variables, to rely on statistical analysis as the impetus for public policy decisions.
I encourage you to read the Washington Post article I cited (now with extra spaces)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
Over-reliance on statistics as the ultimate sanity check is now a tool wielded by big industry, at the expense of public health.
Surprise surprise, all the highly rated posts say "those environmental wackos are at it again" and explain away the correlation with a variety of explanations that we are to accept as givens.
Realize this: There will never be a study "proving" the ill effects of non-ionizing radiation. Why? Find me a control group. You can't, not on this planet. A hundred years ago, when a five watt radio signal broadcast from New York could be heard in Miami, you might have been able to perform this study then. But now we're inundated with non-ionizing radiation, and unless you build a Faraday cage into about ten thousand homes and collect data over twenty years, you will never get "pure" numbers.
Why are you all so reluctant to even entertain the notion that non-ionizing radiation might create a health risk? Are you that in love with broadcast TV and Radio? Based on the attitudes I see here about the MPAA/RIAA, I find that hard to believe. So what is your explanation? A general love of all things electronic? The chance to pass down the mockery you got from the jocks onto the tree-hugging hippies?
I simplly don't understand the attitude most of you put forward regarding this issue. It's reckless and driven by emotion.
But don't worry, even if a study or three come out demonstrating a link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer risk, the EPA will sweep it under the rug when Infinity Broadcasting supresses the evidence under the Bush Administration's Data Quality Act.
"What I don't know can't hurt me" is not a particularly effective survival mechanism. Who knows, maybe we should be buying stock in Reynolds this very minute.