Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Measles, Vaccines and Autism

Dot462 Wrote: Feb 10, 2015 12:19 PM
But, Jim, correlation isn't causation. The study only looked at 12 cases. Parents have to understand the failings of that study and decide whether subsequent studies show that autism isn't caused by MMR. But, first, they have to be able to understand a poorly-designed and interpreted study versus a large sample size, well-designed study. If you don't want to immunize your kids because you think vaccine manufacturers are conning you, then feel free not to immunize. But, then your kids shouldn't be in group settings (schools, amusement parks, theatres, etc.) Keep them home so they can't catch this disease.
In response to:

Measles, Vaccines and Autism

Dot462 Wrote: Feb 10, 2015 12:15 PM
Thank you, Dr. Sowell. It's impossible to compare diagnostic statistics from years past if the definition of the diagnosis has changed. The definition of autism has expanded to include a number of syndromes, as you point out, which persuades people that autism itself has become more prevalent. Even if there are more autism cases, the reason for autism has not been discovered. The important thing for parents is to look at the statistics for themselves, look at the risk involved in not immunizing their kids by checking the rate of infection and the possible permanent effects of the diseases measles, mumps and rubella. Parents have to decide whether it is a lower risk to immunize than to risk getting a highly contagious disease. IMO, people should vaccinate their kids. But, if they decide not to, they need to home school their kids and the schools, both govt and private, including pre-K, should not admit kids without immunizations. We can only have herd immunity to protect immune-suppressed people if about 95% of the kids get immunized. Without herd immunity, as we see now, measles can spread easily to non-immunized people and those who can't be immunized due to medical reasons can get measles with its attendant consequences.
There's tolerance and diversity of thought as long as it's the correct thoughts. I remember the "Free Speech Movement" back in the 1970s at Berkeley when it was just as intolerant of speech that didn't genuflect to its position on issues. The ignorance of political correctness is manifest daily on Twitter and Facebook, plus the verbal attacks that no one would do if they were face-to-face with someone. Somehow, insults and denigration becomes OK when it's removed from actual physical presence. Back in the 1970s, there was no Twitter and Facebook but the ideas were the same and just as intolerant and devoid of critical thinking.
Unfortunately, the social media have become repositories for ad hominem attacks, insulting and demeaning comments, statements that people would never make if talking to someone face-to-face. It's best to stop looking at Twitter and Facebook since they have deteriorated so far. People are just working at ways to attack each other.
CNN deserves Van Jones. Most of their commentators are left of Lenin and Van Jones is left of Stalin, so he should fit right in.
What would be the use of seizing a house in Detroit when there are so many abandoned and trashed houses? Why would the city even want these houses? After they take the houses, what do they do to stop the crime? Do they demolish the houses? I'm glad to hear the courts often reject these violations of property ownership. But, the issue is taking the house that belongs to one person because some other resident was ARRESTED (not even convicted) of a crime? How about a person driving through a town in eastern Nevada and being stopped by police for a traffic violation and the police find cash in the car and confiscate it? The person has not been CONVICTED of anything, or even charged with a crime (other than traffic) and yet because they are carrying cash they now have to PROVE that it was obtained legally. This is an actual occurrence and has happened more than once. If the police weren't allowed to keep the money, it would take the profit out of this gambit. Maybe Detroit is different because there isn't any profit in taking houses that are worthless.
Too bad you feel that way. I was a libertarian back in the '60s when I worked on the Goldwater campaign and I voted for Ron Paul when he ran as a libertarian. I don't know why you label somebody as "whacked out" (whatever that means). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with individual freedom to live life without interfering with other people, advocacy for smaller govt, the failure of the so-called drug wars, Try to ignore the labels "left" and "right" and substitute a continuum of "statism" with the other side being "individual liberty" and see if that would clarify your thoughts. Make a list of issues that fit under those labels and see where it gets you.
Way too many people in prison for drug crimes. Way too much power in the hands of law enforcement when they can take a person's property under civil forfeiture even before the person has been convicted of a crime, or when a property can be taken if one resident has committed a crime regardless of whether the property owner knew it. These things need to stop and Rand Paul is helping shed light on it. The Institute for Justice works to defend people in civil forfeiture cases. Let's take the profit for police departments out of civil forfeiture. Thank you, Rand Paul and those who support him.
If Sandoval decides to run against Harry, we'll have a new Senator. The Lt.Gov. would become governor. Right now, Sandoval says he won't run. Unfortunately, the Repubs are in disarray in Nevada, which was part of the reason Reid didn't get defeated last time. We'll see if they can get their factions to line up for some action in the upcoming legislative session (Nevada legislature meets every two years for 120 days). Sandoval's proposals for higher taxes and more money for education, a higher business license tax, don't sit well with half the Repubs (or maybe more, if we're lucky). The Dems were happy with Sandoval's proposals so he may actually be more popular with Dems right now. A lot of Nevadans like him since he got 70% of the vote in Nov. But, it's two years away, so a lot can happen. Reid could die.
In response to:

New Year's Irresolution

Dot462 Wrote: Jan 13, 2015 1:49 PM
I think characterizing this country as "undeservedly thriving" is true but doesn't go far enough. In the Marxist view, anybody who is thriving (a business, an employer, a country) got that way by exploiting the laboring classes; therefore, they are actually stealing from those who actually create the thriving. The problem with that view is it condemns those who have just because they have, and lauds those who don't have as being exploited. That's where the "you didn't build that" and "you didn't create those jobs" comes from. The people who believe in this old-fashioned Marxism think they are on the upside of the moral compass when they want to take from the rich and give to the poor, or tax the 1% because everybody knows the 1% are all thieves. It's very pernicious because it leads a lot of people to join the hate-the-rich crusade. In these people's perceptions, a country like the U.S. only got that way by stealing from everybody else. In these people's perceptions, the fact that capitalism has raised the living standards of the poor immeasurably by raising the general standard of living is not relevant to the perceived immorality of the bourgeoisie.
This is the trouble with some in the Repub party. They get elected to Washington, get some Potomac fever and think that increased taxes on the Federal level is the way to go. In general, Federal projects cost more, take forever to begin because of Byzantine labor rules and onerous regulations, take longer to complete and many have been involved with bribery and corruption. Why enable that by raising a Federal tax? If a state wants to raise its own gas tax to build something, go for it -- through the ballot box. Raising the Federal gas tax may be a response to increased pressure by lobbyists for those who benefit from Federal contracts. Too bad that we have politicians that money can buy, but of course we do.
Previous 11 - 20 Next