Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:00:43 -0700

charliew wrote:
.....
> 
> I say we should make it illegal to prosecute a black
> perpetrator.  Turn them all loose, because they are victims
> of their society.
> 
> Naturally, I will make every attempt to reside as far from
> these victims as possible.  Thus, they will have to
> victimize other victims to gain the valuables needed to
> support their drug habits, pay for prostitutes, etc.  How
> this can be considered justice is difficult for me to
> understand.
> 
> Thus, you can hopefully see what I love so much about you
> flaming liberals.

I note:

Here I thought the so-called conservatives were responsible.  I doubt 
that your flaming liberals screwed up the Simpson trial.  Fahrakkan's 
(sp?) demonstration planned to take place shortly after the trial and 
certain to draw more and angrier demonstrators if Simpson were found 
guilty certainly gave some presumably very conservative politicians and 
administrators sleepless nights.  Is Fahrakkan liberal or conservative?  
Anyone care to make an assessment?

Here are some more questions for both sides of this discussion:

I've heard a lot of self-appointed conservatives blaming the nation's 
ills on liberals over the past decade or so, and I've heard some of the 
people who have been labelled 'liberal' spouting some pretty 
conservative thought. I've really hardly heard or read anything 
representing liberal thought anywhere - some in the Nation.  What if 
'conservatives' have been throwing bricks at conservatives and calling 
them liberals, when actually liberals no longer exist?  Would this be 
class warfare, tribal warfare, or what?

According to the paper, the 18th street gang is now bigger than the 
crips or the bloods.  Are they conservative or liberal?

Is this group a class or a tribe?

Are major drug importers liberal or conservative?

charliew continues:

>  Your compassion leads you to do stupid
> things, because justice must often be devoid of compassion
> if it is to work.  Think about it.

I reply:

I agree with you 100%.  I have some specific things to do and I am 
working myself up to be absolutely devoid of compassion so that I can 
carry these things out properly.  I think, in fact, that this is the 
solution to a major social problem: we can't leave lawbreakers on the 
street, and at the same time I don't want to pay for their incarceration 
- which in many cases is nothing but welfare (welfare for the prison 
owners as well if they get to gouge the government like the hmo's). What 
is your suggestion?  I've got a solution which neither conservatives nor 
liberals will like, is absolutely devoid of compassion, about which I'll 
tell you later.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 96 03:36:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked](jw) wrote:
>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] 
writes: 
>>>Los Angeles?  *That* was a class revolt?
>>>
>>Absolutely- the median income in the US for white 
households is over 
>>$43,000, while the median income for black households is 
$4,170.  
>
>Median family income, 1994:
>
>White       39,300
>Black       21,542
>Hispanic    23,654
>
>(The Universal Almanac, 1996)

These numbers look *much* more believable.  Thanks for the 
feedback, and have a happy thanksgiving.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 96 03:35:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, "Don Dale" 
<[email-masked]> writes:
>>>> This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any 
"economism,"
>>>> whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic 
racisms. In
>>>> Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient 
tribalism.
>>>>  
>>>>                                      -dlj.
>>> 
>>>This is simply not correct, sorry.  The problem in 
Bosnia, Rwanda, 
>>>Burundi, Azerbajan, Los Angeles and many other places is 
that a 
>>>relatively affluent minority rules.  As in the French and 
Russian 
>>>revolutions, a point comes when the majority revolts and 
sets about
>>>killing off the minority.  This is political economics, 
not tribalism.
>>>The tribal differences are historic and lie behind the 
minority rule 
>>>but are not the cause of the revolt.
>>
households is over 
>$43,000, while the median income for black households is 
$4,170.  This is 
>relevant because it helps explain some of the frustrations 
of the African 
>American minority- which includes poverty, discrimination 
and the feeling 
>of being powerless.  
>
>>So Damian Williams threw his brick at the head of Reginald 
Denny because
>>the truck driver was a rich man?
>
>Actually, that was an exhibition of frustration....and it 
was barbaric.  
>However, in the US, where black men are less likely to 
reach their 65th 
>birthday than white men, where the income disparity is so 
extreme, when 
>discrimination is so far reaching and deplorable, those 
types of reactions 
>shouldn't surprise anyone. 

Thus, you can hopefully see what I love so much about you 
flaming liberals.  Your compassion leads you to do stupid 
things, because justice must often be devoid of compassion 
if it is to work.  Think about it.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 01:45:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
>......
(cut)

>Anyone care to make an assessment?

Fahrakkan is out for Fahrakkan - plain and simple.

Those damned cameras in the court room screwed up the Simpson trial.  Both 
"sides" *and* the judge were more concerned about getting good publicity 
than anything else.

BTW, I will give my impression of this trial, even though I realize that 
most probably do not want to hear my opinion.  From the pure criminal 
standpoint, the prosecution and police messed up evidence gathering so much 
that there is indeed a reasonable doubt about Mr. Simpson's guilt.  Thus, 
even though I am caucasian, I would probably have had to vote not guilty 
(notice I didn't say innocent) if I were a member of the Simpson jury.

The civil trial will probably be much different.  There is indeed a 
preponderance of evidence that suggests that Mr. Simpson is in fact guilty. 
If I had to take my best guess, I would say that he is guilty.  However, 
the criminal jury had to deal with very strict guidelines regarding guilt 
or innocence, and these guidelines were formulated to make it much more 
likely that some guilty people go free in order to prevent punishing 
innocent people.

>liberals will like, is absolutely devoid of compassion, about which I'll 

For once we agree on something.  I'm glad.  Incidentally, I am now raising 
two small children.  I often have to deliberately suppress compassion in 
order to provide justice when my children don't follow the rules.  Justice 
is not always pleasant, and it doesn't always involve spanking, but it sure 
is something that I would rather avoid.  However, (and this is the most 
important point of this discussion) my children decide if justice is 
appropriate - I do not.  Their actions alone either merit praise or 
punishment.

Why do I look at my children in this way?  Because I view child raising by 
an analogous situation (stay with me here; the analogy will seem silly 
until you think about it).  If you are flying a rocket to the moon, you 
normally have to make a mid-course correction during the flight.  The 
sooner you recognize error and correct for it, the less fuel the correction 
will take.  In human terms, a little bit of suffering now may well avoid 
enormous suffering in the future.  In other words, I am actually trying to 
minimize the total amount of suffering my children must endure.  It's too 
bad that most other people can't apply similar common sense to the legal 
justice system.

Have a happy thanksgiving.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 07:47:56 -0700

charliew wrote:
....

I reply:

Then no more need be said on the issue.
......

I note:

For the last decade or so (when I had more money than I needed) I made a 
point of occasionally offering people $5 - $20 no strings attached.  I 
probably did this about 200 times.  One girl working at a hotel check-in 
counter took $5, she refused it the first time and said hers was the 
only one in the hotel which could not take tips, so I told her it wasn't 
a tip.  A divorced Mormon woman living at her mother's with her teen-age 
son at work took $20, and asked me four or five times if I was sure I 
wanted to give that much money away.  I'm starting to think that only a 
fraction of the people whom we label criminals are really criminals as 
we like to think of them - most may be very ethical people in their own 
way.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 16:36:19 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
>.......

Sadly, it's not most people you have to worry about.  The 1-2% of the true 
social deviants are responsible for way more than their "share" of crime.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:35:15 -0700

> >wanted to give that much money away.

I should have included that no-one else ever took the money.

---

From: [email-masked] (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 01:06:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, posted in newsgroups:
 alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first, alt.politics.economics,
 alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture,
 sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.environment,
 talk.environment, tor.general
>Those damned cameras in the court room screwed up the Simpson trial.  Both 

It's beginning to look to me like the anonymous "charliew" thinks
his *job* is to clutter up the environment groups with stuff that
obviously doesn't belong there.  And mfriesel is happy to cooperate.
No wonder "charliew" doesn't sign his name to his writing.

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose

---

From: [email-masked] (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 14:03:59 GMT

>that your flaming liberals screwed up the Simpson trial.  Fahrakkan's 

    <SNIP>

    I generally hate "Get Out of this Newsgroup" posts, but we
    really are importing a lot of extraneous threads into the
    heretofore pristine sci.energy newsgroup.  Please consider
    your newsgroups and cut down on the broadcast of your
    posts!

-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
[email-masked]   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 16:59:31 -0700

[email-masked] (B. Alan Guthrie) writes:

...

Welcome to the real world.  He and his buddies have been stuffing 
sci.econ
with such irreleventia for yonks, now you guys have been discovered too.

George Antony

I reply:

Well, I never originate such posts as you would find out if you looked. 
I only reply to those originated elsewhere - so talk to those who 
originate them if you don't like them.  But I'm tired of playing this 
game, too, and I've got better things to do.

---

From: [email-masked] (George Antony Ph 93818)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:55:34 GMT

>    your newsgroups and cut down on the broadcast of your

Welcome to the real world.  He and his buddies have been stuffing sci.econ 
with such irreleventia for yonks, now you guys have been discovered too. 

George Antony