Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1449)	10/6/2000 10:17:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

You have mixed up law and morality. Funny.. I thought it took an acknowledgement of the latter to recognize the need for the former. But at their heart, without some moral foundation based upon the inalienable rights of human begings, laws are merely the tyranny of the powerful over the impotent. (Paraphrasing Jefferson there.. hehe)

To: epicure who wrote (1449)	10/6/2000 10:18:11 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

X - I've enjoyed your debate with Ron, especially as my personal philosophy is probably closer to yours - I've always considered myself an agnostic existentialist - yet my political beliefs are closer to Ron's. But, as an existentialist (self-described; I've never studied philosophy), I have to disagree with your drawing a distinction between law and morality. My recollection of the anthropological definition of a law is that it is a social more (essentially morality), the violation of which brings a sanction. So, very roughly and simplistically speaking, all laws are just moral values that all members of a society have to obey.

To: epicure who wrote (1449)	10/7/2000 8:40:33 AM
From: briskit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

Since I have no idea what you are talking about let me jump in here with unfounded opinion and reckless abandon. Relativism is a much wielded intellectual, or at least philosophical instrument I find interesting. According to Paul Johnson (Modern Times) the concept of relativism is the step-child, or perhaps more accurately bastard child, of Einstein's theory of relativity. This is a huge irony. Some rather shallow (don't take this personally) populist social application of Einstein's grand precise scientific theory has had hugely negative consequences, most profoundly in the thinking, but also in the behavior of the average guy on the street. Einstein bemoaned the fact, the results of which he could predict very early on. The practical implication for most people is that whatever they want to do is right and good. To be sure it may only be right and good for them, or for me, and not for anyone else. The beauty is they are humble enough to only claim said right for themselves. But they also claim the absolute right to ward off any "controlling authority" (if I may be so bold) from laying a claim on them. IE there is no "real" morality, only individual personal preference. The first section of the book is worth reading for further background. "The modern world began 29 May 1919 when photographs of a solar eclipse....", thus began relativity. But, "for most people, relativity never became more than a vague source of unease ...at a popular level the belief began to circulate that there were no longer any absolutes of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value." Relativity became confused with relativism. This allows a world where anything is possible, in the worst sense of the phrase for the less discerning or disciplined. And we are getting a lot of it, imo, not least in our public life. OK, time to wake up and go play. I know that in the current discourse this is irrelevant, or is that irrelative?

To: epicure who wrote (1449)	1/9/2001 11:56:44 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 10042

OT DDT ban is genocidal By *Steven Milloy US Report TNA News with Commentary Tuesday 5 December 2000 As First-World children eagerly anticipate the holiday season, millions of Third-World children are about to be condemned to certain death from malaria by international environmental elitists. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and 250 other environmental groups will advocate the insecticide DDT be banned at next week's United Nations Environment Program meeting in Johannesburg. The meeting's aim is a treaty banning or restricting so-called persistent organic chemicals. Malaria control experts oppose a DDT ban, arguing that spraying DDT in houses is inexpensive and highly effective in controlling malaria — especially in sub-Saharan Africa where 1 in 20 children die from malaria. Unfortunately, the eco-elites have out-maneuvered and outgunned public health advocates. Saving lives doesn't interest DDT opponents who insist on recycling junk science to achieve their ill-considered goal of a pesticide-free world. “DDT is a persistent, bioaccumulative, hormone-disrupting chemical,” alleges the director of the WWF's anti-DDT effort. “It is associated in the public's mind with weakened eggshells and declining bird populations...,” he added. But there never was, and still isn't a scientific basis for DDT fear-mongering. The “public’s mind” was first polluted with misinformation about DDT by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson incorrectly alleged that DDT harmed bird reproduction and caused cancer. Carson wrote: “Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail, into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season, survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.” DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population. This prediction hasn't materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout — later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk whatsoever. As wrong as Carson was, the Environmental Protection Agency’s action against DDT — the precedent for next week's efforts to ban the chemical — was worse. Anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge in 1971-72. After 7 months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT. Ruckelshaus didn’t attend the hearings or read the transcript. He refused to release the memos used to make his decision, even rebuffing a Department of Agriculture request through the Freedom of Information Act. As it turns out, Ruckelshaus belonged to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Ruckelshaus solicited donations for the anti-pesticide activist group on personal stationery stating, “EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.” The WWF now alleges DDT disrupts hormonal processes to wreak havoc on immune, reproductive and nervous systems in laboratory animals, citing a 1999 report by the National Research Council. The allegation conveniently overlooks the report's main conclusion that the scientific evidence is inadequate to suggest that low doses of chemicals typically found in the environment pose any risk. It's not surprising, after all, that animals administered high doses of chemicals develop all sorts of ill-effects; they've essentially been poisoned. The WWF’s chicanery doesn't end with the science. Publicly, the WWF claims it backed off the demand of a DDT ban by 2007 in favor of regulatory controls. Don’t be fooled. The would-be controls are so onerous and costly for the Third World that they would operate as a de facto ban. Of the 23 countries using DDT, only nine countries so far asked for exemptions under the impending treaty. The others either have stockpiled DDT in advance or have been scared off by the burdensome regulatory scheme, according to Roger Bate of FightingMalaria.org. Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT — or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate. The AID’s blackmail is eerily similar to its 1970s view that the failure of the Global Malaria Eradication Program (1956-1969) was a blessing in disguise. “Better off dead than riotously reproducing,” an AID official said. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1970, “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that otherwise would have been inevitable.” The WWF et al. often exploit “the children” as a stalking horse for their dubious agenda. Their effort to ban DDT is a chilling reminder of this cynicism. Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of Junkscience.com. newaus.com.au