1 - 6
In response to:

One Nation Under Drugs

David582 Wrote: Jan 13, 2014 3:59 PM
So Townhall, supposedly a conservative website, is voicing support for one of the baleful gifts the "Progressives" gave us the first time that was their preferred name: opiates were first banned in 1914, then it was alcohol in 1919, the marijuana in 1937, all under "Progressive" Democrats. Even if Nixon renamed it "the war on drugs", the whole effort was brought to us by the same folks who gave us the income tax, direct election of senators, and the state-Ponzi-scheme that is Social Security.
In response to:

What Happened to Just Quitting?

David582 Wrote: Jun 10, 2013 1:03 PM
Mr. Galen: How evil must a government plan or program, wrapped in secrecy laws that make it crime to divulge its nature, be before you would think it the moral duty of one privy to break the law and expose the plan or program? Surely there is some point: a coup d'etat to overthrow the Constitution completely? the commission of genocide? It is the duty of every man to decide what is ethical and moral and to act according to the dictates of his conscience, even in violation of laws -- the American Founders certainly thought so -- and mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor to what by your lights was an act of treason against the British Crown. I remind you that Federal employees swear an oath: I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. What precisely would you have them do if in their judgement their immediate superiors (or an agency they subsequently consult for after leaving direct govenment employment) prove to be domestic enemies of the Constitution? Just ignore that part and go on with the faithfully discharge part? Oh, no, right, just quit their job and let the domestic enemies of the Constitution they swore to defend carry on.
Human beings are a violent people, and always have been (at least since Cain slew Abel, or maybe since we used to need to defend our young against large predators.)
Actually, epidemiological evidence suggests just the opposite: the crime rate peaked the year Doom and Mortal Kombat came out and has been falling ever since, even as more and more (and increasingly graphic) violent video games have been released.
Actually, I would bet that suppressing all violent video games would result in an increase in crime. The crime rate peaked the year Doom and Mortal Kombat were released, and has been falling ever since. Violent video games provide a harmless outlet for young men's aggressive urges that, back in the old days, contributed to brawling and crimes committed a thrill-seeking.
In point of fact, looking at crime data epidemiologically, there is good evidence that violent video games, in fact, have a cathartic effect: crime rates, particularly violent crime rates, have dropped in tandem with the release of violent video games. The peak crime rate coincided with the release of Doom and Mortal Kombat, and violent crime has been falling ever since. (There is a charming graphic with video game boxes superimposed on a graph of the FBI statistic crime victims per 1000 population that illustrates the point.) By providing a harmless outlet for young men's aggressive urges, violent video games, decrease the incidence of brawling, crimes committed for thrill-seeking, and other overt violent behavior.
1 - 6