From: Nicq MacDonald (sehkenenra@netzero.net)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 11:53:31 MDT
> > We agree that: Communists are awful. Terrorists are awful.
> > Saddam was awful.
>
> Well, let me be the first to welcome you to our minority viewpoint.
It's hardly a minority on this list- in fact, I'd be willing to wager that
everyone on this list agrees with those sentiments.
> Glad you can admit it. But don't say 'we agree' unless you mean merely
> you and I, because other members of this list obviously do not agree
> with that statement.
Name one, by name, please.
> Because members of this list have argued in favor
> of anarcho socialism,
Making an argument and playing devil's advocate are perfectly legitimate.
I've been arguing in favor of fascism in many of my Poli Sci classes, just
to provoke fights with other students. My professors know that I'm just a
minarchist liberal, though, who is playing a game with my fellow students to
try to make them realize the contradictions of their own positions.
> that the 'good guys' won in indochina,
We can debate forever about whether or not the wars fought in Indochina were
ours to fight, whether they were winnable, etc, ect- it's a dead horse
folks- STOP BEATING IT! I thought the Extropy list was about the future,
not the past...
> that Kuwait
> wasn't a legit country because Saddam didn't recognize it, etc. etc.
That's just ridiculous.
> I
> will continue to repeat that communists, terrorists, and saddam are
> awful and present evidence supporting that statement until I no longer
> see such odd statements on this mailing list, or until I come across
> convincing evidence suggesting the none of those things are awful.
Alright. I'm going to start constantly posting messages stating that the
sky is blue and the grass is green.
> I know my anti-communists and terrorists articles are quite distracting
> to your 'land of lets only talk about whats wrong with the US' possible
> vision of this mailing list, but I'm sure recent developments in this
> list will help to bring about such a vision.
Alright. Damien posted a message reporting on how many people are
incarcerated in the US. This is a major concern for many people here and
abroad. Why does America have a higher crime rate than the rest of the
industrialized world? What can we do about it? How much of this "crime" is
victimless in nature (such as drug posession)? How many people are falsely
imprisoned? How many of the rich and powerful manage to get away with
crimes and plea bargains while the same offense would land your typical
young black man or native American in prison for years?
I'm from South Dakota, which has the highest rate of incarceration in the
country, thanks to the judicial policies put in place and the prison system
built by our former Attorney General and four-term Governor Bill Janklow,
now serving in congress. Last week, our esteemed congressman, who has a
long history of speeding tickets and accidents, sped through a stop sign in
his '95 DeVille- and killed a motorcyclist. He's had 10 speeding tickets
and been in several accidents in the last ten years- he should have had his
liscense revoked. The area of the accident was blocked off for a mile in
every direction, and Janklow, although reported unconscious after the
accident, was not admitted to a hospital, but taken back to his home by his
wife and put under protection by the authorities. In all likelyhood, rather
than going to prison for this occurence, he'll plea bargain his way into a
relatively small fine.
Another instance- drug posession. I have, in the past, used marijuana.
Many of my friends have used it and posessed it as well- and many of them
have ended up in jail or prison because of it. The funny thing is, all of
those who have gone to jail or prison were from lower-class and
working-class backgrounds, while the children of attorneys, doctors,
businessmen, and politicians never seem to be bothered by authorities, no
matter how much they posess or use...
There's definitely some hypocrisy in this system.
> Indeed, it is. At least in the US, though, the things that will get you
> tossed in jail are pretty well established, documented, and supported by
> the majority. All one need to is not steal, assault, kill, or deal
> drugs.
Or be falsely accused and unable to afford a decent attorney. Or posess
some harmless drugs. Or, in my home city, not be caught congregating
publicly in groups of eight or more after 10:00 at night, caught passing a
checkpoint more than twice after 10:00, or caught on a police camera going
through a red light (just like a certain congressman)...
> And as far as influence, as an American my vote obviously was able to
> directly influence the continuation of a murderous tyrannical regime.
> But this begs the question, is there anything we truly do not have *any*
> influence on?
Editorial Comment: Replacing a murderous dictator with a violent anarchy
isn't necessarily progress.
> I wasn't asking for the whole article to be reproduced violating
> copyright, I would have liked to seen a link to the article to read more
> about the study. I would genuinely be interested to know how they
> determined the incarceration rate in other not so open societies, like
> communist ones, or tyranical dictator ones, or oppresive theocracies.
> E.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc.
> etc.
China's incarcerated population is somewhere between 25 Million and 30
Million- higher than the entire population of Iraq, imprisoned without due
process, often for dubious reasons. Yet, while we invaded Iraq, we instead
support trade deregulation with China and hand them our industrial sector on
a silver platter. More hypocrisy?
-Nicq MacDonald
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 20 2003 - 12:04:17 MDT