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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (57795)	8/3/2004 3:32:02 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793739

speaking of children I'd like to mention helmets for biking, for adults and for children the death rate per 10,000 registered unhelmeted motorcyclists is 3.38 unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a head injury than were helmeted riders motorcycles are less stable and less visible than cars, and they have high performance capabilities - for these and other reasons, motorcycles are more likely than cars to be in crashes - and when motorcycles crash, their riders lack the protection of an enclosed vehicle, so they're more likely to be injured or killed - per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles is about 26 times the number in cars helmets are about 29 percent effective in preventing motorcycle deaths and about 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries - an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury, compared with a helmeted rider Scientists from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviewed bicycle deaths and injury data from 1984 through 1988 and found that some 1,000 people died each year from bicycle crashes. Head injury was involved in 62 percent of those deaths. Some 558,000 people sustained bicycle-associated injuries each year, and of those, 32.5 percent or 181,000 suffered head injuries. The CDC estimated that if all bicyclists had worn helmets during the five-year study period, one death could have been prevented every day and one head injury could have been prevented every four minutes if you bike, wear a helmet and stay alive

To: LindyBill who wrote (57795)	8/3/2004 3:33:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793739

Why the Democrats use 12-year-olds Dennis Prager August 3, 2004 After spending the week at the Democratic National Convention broadcasting my radio show, it was not easy to choose which aspect of the convention I would devote my column to. Would it be the discussions I had with delegates, nearly all of whom I liked and none of whom thought clearly about our nation's issues? Or about the Potemkin Village the Democrats erected -- a convention where almost nothing the Democrats really believe was on display? I decided on the speech given during prime time by a 12-year-old girl from the San Francisco Bay Area. In my view, this talk was typically and uniquely Democratic. To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age). I enjoyed meeting Democrats last week. Many are people I would be happy to have as neighbors. But compared to Republicans, liberals and Democrats are often adults who do not wish to grow up. When George W. Bush was elected, I felt as if adults would now run the country after the adolescent-like President Clinton. Liberals and Democrats are not comfortable with adult-child distinctions. They therefore frequently treat and regard children as adults and frequently treat and regard adults as children. That is why liberals do not generally want children to call adults "Mr." or "Mrs." Such titles render adults distinct from children. That is why liberal teachers often dress and talk similarly to their students and ask to be called by their first names. That is why liberals led the fight to lower the voting age to 18 and why California Democrats are now seeking to lower it further (as low as 14). That is why liberal educators worked to enable students to design college curricula. To many liberals, a 55-year-old professor does not know anything more than a 20-year-old about what students should be studying. That is why liberals don't worry about protecting children's innocence as much as conservatives do. The early sexualization of children is therefore not a problem to liberal educators. In a nutshell, the differing views of childhood innocence are what the battles over sex education in elementary schools, condom distribution in high schools and AIDS education in fourth grade are all about. It is therefore not surprising that the Democrats invited a 12-year-old girl to address their convention. First, the politicization of children is no more a problem to most Democrats and liberals than is children's sexualization. Second, for many liberals, there is just as much to be learned about politics and society from children as from adults. The notion that wisdom accrues with age is generally alien to liberals. So why not have a 12-year-old share her own wisdom with a convention and nation of adults? Third, it is illuminating to note what the 12-year-old said that evoked the loudest cheers from the Democratic delegates. In the words of the Oakland Tribune, "The show-stealer was Oakland's Ilana Wexler, 12, who brought down the house with her suggestion that Vice President Dick Cheney get a 'timeout' for using foul language. Within hours she became an international star, media outlets clamoring for her attention, fans seeking her autograph." The Democrats went crazy over the girl because she not only shattered the adult-child social distinction, she did so with regard to an adult of immense prominence and status, the vice president of the United States. Listening to a 12-year-old publicly mock the Republican vice president of the United States brought Democrats almost orgasmic pleasure, especially since no Democrats had the courage to do so in their speeches. Of course, this girl has accomplished nothing compared to Dick Cheney. She has no wisdom, no humility and no knowledge beyond the leftist platitudes spoon-fed by her parents and schools. She is a mere child, more foolish than most, in that she actually thinks she has earned the right to publicly ridicule the vice president of the United States. The Democratic Party is as shameless as it is immature. Shameless in its exploitation of children. And shameless in its hypocrisy. The Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, used the same "f-word" in a public interview in Rolling Stone magazine -- a far more serious matter than using it privately. And that is why a 12-year-old know-it-all stole the Democrats' show.