Che Guevara: Idiot liberal hero.

[MSimon]

Let me clear it up:

Moral socialism = American Alcohol Prohibition 1920 to 1933.

[Skipjack]

The prohibition was a silly attempt at regulating something that does not have to be regulated. The US has to get beyond the "alcohol is the devil" mentality and teach people how to handle it. A person that is drunk twice a year is not an alcoholic. A person that drinks a beer once a day is not an alcoholic. A person that drinks a glass of whiskey three times a day may be or become and alcoholic. There are some simple rules that every teenager learns here when it comes to drinking alcohol:
1. You never drink allone
2. You never, ever drink when you are sad. You drink when you are celebrating, not when you are sad.
Ignore those two rules and you are on the best way to becoming an alcoholic.

[Diogenes]

The prohibition was a silly attempt at regulating something that does not have to be regulated. The US has to get beyond the "alcohol is the devil" mentality and teach people how to handle it. A person that is drunk twice a year is not an alcoholic. A person that drinks a beer once a day is not an alcoholic. A person that drinks a glass of whiskey three times a day may be or become and alcoholic. There are some simple rules that every teenager learns here when it comes to drinking alcohol:
1. You never drink allone
2. You never, ever drink when you are sad. You drink when you are celebrating, not when you are sad.
Ignore those two rules and you are on the best way to becoming an alcoholic.

I just got back from visiting my niece in the hospital. She's the one who's eye was cut out to cure her headaches. (Isn't socialized medicine Wonderful!) She asked me if I had heard about the man who was killed in Indiahoma. I hadn't. He was a friend and a neighbor to her family, and he was ran over by a drunk driver while mowing his lawn.
http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=12322322


While i'm on the subject, two of my uncles were killed by a drunk driver, and two others were injured. My real father was a drunkard, and abandoned the family when I was an infant. My Grandfather was a drunkard. My brother was/is a drunkard. One of my other Uncle's was shot to death by his wife because he attacked her in a drunken rage. (She was drunk as well.) My cousin (the aforementioned uncle's son) was drunk and fell out of a moving truck, struck his head and died. An Acquaintance of mine killed his liver (a bottle of vodka/day) and died just a month ago.

I know other people, acquaintances, friends, etc. that have ruined their lives because of alcohol, and I just don't see how they can be taught to handle it.

From what i've read of the subject, some people (Largely Europeans) have genes which produce enzymes which break down alcohol far more rapidly than people who lack such genes. As a result, the effect of alcohol on them is less, as is the duration.

American Indians tend to lack this gene, and usually become drunk quite easily, and the effect lingers in them far longer than others. For whatever reason, they are predisposed to abusing alcohol. (I've seen them drink mouthwash)

I can conceive of no "cure" for these effects, and indeed, drunkenness is a serious problem in many (not just American Indians) communities.

Other than some form of interdiction, I can conceive of no way to do anything about it. Society has simply decided to accept the status quo level of misery and death from alcohol that we currently have.

Do you have any idea that might really work OTHER than interdiction?

So far, nobody else does.

[MSimon]

I know other people, acquaintances, friends, etc. that have ruined their lives because of alcohol, and I just don't see how they can be taught to handle it.

And you just don't know how to keep them from getting it. And for your tragedy who is to blame? It has to be some one. Why not just accept that alcohol and your relatives don't mix and there is nothing you can do about it.

My attitude? Sh*t Happens and I'm lucky to have lived through it so far. Not all my relatives have been so fortunate.

[MSimon]

Do you have any idea that might really work OTHER than interdiction?

And the really sad thing is that interdiction doesn't work either.

[Skipjack]

I know other people, acquaintances, friends, etc. that have ruined their lives because of alcohol, and I just don't see how they can be taught to handle it.

Now it is too late for them. However, you have to create a culture for them to grow up in, where they learn how to handle it. Kids here usually drink their first alcohol arround the age of 14. They start going out frequently at the age of 16. We have fewer alcoholics than you have.

From what i've read of the subject, some people (Largely Europeans) have genes which produce enzymes which break down alcohol far more rapidly than people who lack such genes. As a result, the effect of alcohol on them is less, as is the duration.
You lea

That can very well be. That needs to be researched then however. Plus, very few americans have native american genes in them. I think there are more Irish (or Irish heritage people) with that problem right now in the US. They really have a problem handling alcohol.
Also, there are people here too that get drunk more easily than others. They also dont get alcoholics, automatically. They simply learn their limits and drink less. I e.g. dont do well with alcohol. I learned how to handle it. Drink non- alcoholic drinks in between glasses of beer when going out, e.g..
You learn that. It might take you getting really drunk some 20 to 30 times or so, but then you get it.

[Diogenes]

I know other people, acquaintances, friends, etc. that have ruined their lives because of alcohol, and I just don't see how they can be taught to handle it.

And you just don't know how to keep them from getting it. And for your tragedy who is to blame? It has to be some one. Why not just accept that alcohol and your relatives don't mix and there is nothing you can do about it.

My attitude? Sh*t Happens and I'm lucky to have lived through it so far. Not all my relatives have been so fortunate.

I have no issues with evolution in action. If people end up killing themselves because of their own stupid actions, then the fault lies with them.

But what about the guy who was mowing his lawn? Or my two dead uncles from the drunk driver?

Does not the blame for their deaths lie elsewhere than themselves?

[Diogenes]

The thought occurs to me, that many many fires are the result of people lighting flammable devices several times a day, and then getting careless with them, casually tossing them into the grass, or lying in bed and falling asleep with them.

One would think that as an intellectual exercise, we could all agree that being careless with lit burning objects is a great potential danger for everyone, and as a general rule, it would be best if people didn't do that.

If only there was some way that people could survive without those lit burning objects, so many innocent lives could be saved.

Likewise, if ethanol wasn't so necessary for the human metabolism, a lot of innocent people wouldn't have to be maimed or killed.


What is that Libertarian philosophy again? "An it harm none, do what ye will" ?

[Diogenes]

Do you have any idea that might really work OTHER than interdiction?

And the really sad thing is that interdiction doesn't work either.

It really depends on what you mean by "work". If you mean 100% effective, then of course it doesn't "Work." Very few things in the scope of human activities gets near 100%.

The qualification as to whether it works by any useful standard is if there is no discernible difference between doing it or not.

One could argue that "interdicting" pirates does not work, because we still have pirates. However, we are fully aware that we have LESS pirates, than we would have without interdiction, so therefore interdicting pirates does in fact "work". It's just not 100% successful so far.

The overall measure of success of the idea would have to revolve around the cost vs. benefit equation, and who is the judge of what costs equal what benefits.

By that standard, it is possible for many different people to have many different opinions as to whether or not interdiction "works." It all depends on subjective weighting factors.

In other words, it depends on your point of view.

[Diogenes]

I know other people, acquaintances, friends, etc. that have ruined their lives because of alcohol, and I just don't see how they can be taught to handle it.

Now it is too late for them. However, you have to create a culture for them to grow up in, where they learn how to handle it. Kids here usually drink their first alcohol arround the age of 14. They start going out frequently at the age of 16. We have fewer alcoholics than you have.

Did you miss the part where I explained the difference between European genes that deal with alcohol better than people who lack such genes?

Your "culture" suggestion would work just fine if you give us a couple thousand years for evolution to weed out all the aforementioned genes.

From what i've read of the subject, some people (Largely Europeans) have genes which produce enzymes which break down alcohol far more rapidly than people who lack such genes. As a result, the effect of alcohol on them is less, as is the duration.
You lea

That can very well be. That needs to be researched then however. Plus, very few americans have native american genes in them. I think there are more Irish (or Irish heritage people) with that problem right now in the US. They really have a problem handling alcohol.

I didn't say that it was only American Indians that had this problem. Other people have it as well. Perhaps the Irish lack these genes. In any case, my point is that it may very well be a Genetic problem, and that isn't going to get solved by changing the culture. These people would still be alcoholics if they grew up in Europe.

Also, there are people here too that get drunk more easily than others. They also dont get alcoholics, automatically. They simply learn their limits and drink less. I e.g. dont do well with alcohol. I learned how to handle it. Drink non- alcoholic drinks in between glasses of beer when going out, e.g..
You learn that. It might take you getting really drunk some 20 to 30 times or so, but then you get it.

Saw thistoday. Thought it was amusing.

[Skipjack]

Did you miss the part where I explained the difference between European genes that deal with alcohol better than people who lack such genes?

I did not miss that part, but I think that it is nonsense.
Most white americans have the same genes that we Europeans have.
You have had 500 years at most (most americans way less than that) to change genetically. I think that this is to short a time for such a wide spread genetic change, especially if there was no evolutionary pressure to establish it. As I acknowledged, the native americans do have a genetic problem, but very few white americans have native american genes in the mix and even there would only be a certain chance for this gene to even have made it through the generations and then to be in the phenotype and not just dormant somewhere in the genotype.
The irish though could have that same problem. Many of them do have an alcohol problem. But again, this only applies to a part of the US population (not sure how many, sorry). You can not force this on all the american citizens, of which the majority do not have this gene defect, just because of a few that may, or may not have this genetic defect.
It may be better to teach people how to handle alcohol correctly.
Using alcohol as a means to treat depression, as it is often depicted in popular (US) culture is defenitely not the way to go.

[Diogenes]

Did you miss the part where I explained the difference between European genes that deal with alcohol better than people who lack such genes?

I did not miss that part, but I think that it is nonsense.
Most white americans have the same genes that we Europeans have.
You have had 500 years at most (most americans way less than that) to change genetically. I think that this is to short a time for such a wide spread genetic change, especially if there was no evolutionary pressure to establish it. As I acknowledged, the native americans do have a genetic problem, but very few white americans have native american genes in the mix and even there would only be a certain chance for this gene to even have made it through the generations and then to be in the phenotype and not just dormant somewhere in the genotype.
The irish though could have that same problem. Many of them do have an alcohol problem. But again, this only applies to a part of the US population (not sure how many, sorry). You can not force this on all the american citizens, of which the majority do not have this gene defect, just because of a few that may, or may not have this genetic defect.
It may be better to teach people how to handle alcohol correctly.
Using alcohol as a means to treat depression, as it is often depicted in popular (US) culture is defenitely not the way to go.

I think the occurance of American Indian genes in the American population is probably more than you realize. Just so, Caucasian gene's in the Black American population, and vice versa.

Apart from that, I think evolutionary change can occur faster than you realize.

I read an article that theorized that European genes which tend towards anemia were the result of the fact that yersinia pestis likes iron. As a result, people with iron poor blood tended to survive better.

Pretty fast evolutionary change if you ask me.

[Skipjack]

I read an article that theorized that European genes which tend towards anemia were the result of the fact that yersinia pestis likes iron. As a result, people with iron poor blood tended to survive better.

Yersinia pestis has been almost equally active in densly populated areas all over the world. It was in aethopia, china, lybia, etc. It was never limited to Europe. The last great plague outbreak in Europe was in the 14th century btw. There were smaller ones later, but they much less severe.

I think the occurance of American Indian genes in the American population is probably more than you realize.

Citation please.
Also, just because there is a gene in the genotype, it does not mean that it is actually coming to use in the phenotype.
Further, of course we all share some common genes, we are all humans after all.

[Diogenes]

I read an article that theorized that European genes which tend towards anemia were the result of the fact that yersinia pestis likes iron. As a result, people with iron poor blood tended to survive better.

Yersinia pestis has been almost equally active in densly populated areas all over the world. It was in aethopia, china, lybia, etc. It was never limited to Europe. The last great plague outbreak in Europe was in the 14th century btw. There were smaller ones later, but they much less severe.

I guess you are missing the point, or i'm not making it clear. The Theory is that yersinia pestis drove evolution in that area of Europe towards more anemia. Whether or not it did so elsewhere is irrelevant to that point. Did you follow the link I left on that topic?

I think the occurance of American Indian genes in the American population is probably more than you realize.

Citation please.
Also, just because there is a gene in the genotype, it does not mean that it is actually coming to use in the phenotype.
Further, of course we all share some common genes, we are all humans after all.

You're on your own with this one. I've seen stats before, but the point isn't really important enough for me to look them up. Besides, I sometimes wonder if anyone bothers to look at the links I post already. Given some of the responses I get, i'm inclined to think people either ignore them or just casually glance at them.

[Diogenes]

One point I would like to emphasizes very strongly is the point brought out in the initial post in this thread.


Castro rules today primarily for one reason: The Knights of Camelot cut off the bullet supply to Manel and his freedom-fighting Band of Brothers.

This sentence is of course referring to John F. Kennedy. For those of you who do not know your American History accurately, President Eisenhower initiated a plan to over throw Castro in Cuba. The plan called for Cuban exiles (those who had lost their property and families in the Communist Revolution) to be trained and equipped, and then supported by the US Navy and Air force (possibly the Army as well) as they went back to Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro.

Eisenhower fully expected Richard Nixon to win the election of 1960, and that the plan would be implemented. Due to blatantly illegal ballot rigging by the Democrats in the City of Chicago (and elsewhere) John Kennedy was declared the winner instead. (Eventually the election cheating was discovered, and it proved Nixon had actually won the election, but it was too late. The Electoral college had already voted.)

As a result, we ended up with Kennedy, who inherited the Eisenhower plan. Kennedy, of course being a silver spoon in his mouth Democrat, never learned anything about how the REAL world works. As a result, he decided to change the Eisenhower plan. He eliminated the US Air and Naval support promised to the Cuban Exiles, but he didn't tell THEM!

The Cubans attacked at Playa Girón, and made quick inroads. The Navy was supposed to bombard the shores prior to engagement, and the US Air force was supposed to wipe out Castro's Air force. They didn't.

I have personally spoken to people in the Navy who were onboard ships that were supposed to lend support to the assault, and they tell me the entire crew was sick with despair because they had been ordered not to give the promised support.

Eventually, the Cuban freedom fighters ran out of bullets (Thanks John F. Kennedy) and were captured. Many of them spent years in prison being tortured and abused, some of them were just killed.

Why did the US Government turn it's back on these people we sent to Cuba? Because Kennedy didn't want us to appear so militaristic to the rest of the world.

The invasion convinced Fidel Castro that he needed a means to stop the US from doing it again. Nuclear weapons would do the trick. He contacted Moscow and demanded they provide him with nuclear protection. As a result of the botched invasion, the Russians agreed.

And Thus did John Fitzgerald Kennedy through stupidity and dishonesty create the Cuban Missile crises, which could have resulted in the deaths of millions of Americans, and possibly a world wide war, with millions of deaths in Russia as well.


Kennedy nearly caused a Nuclear war.