- 1 out of every 3 youth that smoke will eventually die from tobacco related diseases, and cigarettes kill over 20 times more people annually then MURDER; yet we create Gang Task Forces, and Counter Terrorism Units.
- The wealth gap is widening. The top 20% of the country owns over 80% of all wealth. Politicians promise to shrink that gap, yet it cost $86 to register for an AP Exam, and $500 to take an SAT prep class; both of which are factors which greatly affect where you go to college, which greatly affects where you work, which determines your income & wealth.
- George Walker Bush was elected President in the 2000 Elections as a result of the Electoral College; yet more Americans voted for Al Gore as their next President. Gore received over half a million more votes than Bush.
- More Americans have died fighting in Iraq, than were killed as a result of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks.
Please tell me why, WHY ARE WE SO FOOLISH?
37 comments:
#1--Like I learned in my history class, we can't regulate a person's choice...we tried that with prohibiting alcohol, doesn't work. We live in a country where, right or wrong, people have the freedom to do stupid things and slowly kill themselves, ex: smoking. Gang task forces, Terrorism units, all deal with people preying on others and wanting to commit crimes. Do you suggest a cigarette task force?
#2. The Ap exam and SAT prep classes have little to do with government. Those are private institutions that can charge whatever they want. Also, I think an ap exam has this thing where you don't have to pay if you can't afford it...
#3. Interesting about bush, but that is how our system is set up.
#4. Those that died in Iraq died so there will not be another september 11th attack. I don't think that is foolish...
For your first two comments:
I was not making a statement about what I believe we should, or should not do. I was merely uncovering statistics, and data, which is absolutely apalling and ridiculous.
And actually, those that died/are dying in Iraq are not dying so there isn't another September 11th Terrorist Attack. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, and the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. NYU recently released a study showing that the War in Iraq has actually increased the number of terrorist attacks worldwide, because it has angered many, and motivated them to carry out attacks on western interest. They are fighting to stabilize the country, and the fact of the matter is, whether you are for or against the war. MORE AMERICANS HAVE DIED IN IRAQ, THAN AS A RESULT OF 9/11.
He's right, this article isn't meant to make undertone opinions on what should happen.
It is just pointing out the bullshit and contradictions
Gotta fight somewhere. Be a shame to be the one generation without a decent war.
Really? I think that would be a good thing...
I'm not sure I would be willing to trade American lives for glory...I meana how many dead kids makes a war decent? 50,000? A Vietnam? maybe 200,000, like a WW1? Or maybe we'll go find someone valiant enough to be worth fighting, like some neo nazis, and lose 420,00...or just make it a grand old Civil war and kill half a million.
No wars are decent. Some are just more necessary than others.
This is starting to scare me. And here I thought I went to a liberal school. My thoughts? Oh, I dunno.
Lets just say the war in Iraq is a worse Idea than when Mrs. Lincoln said "No, lets go out to the theatre tonight"
1. Cigarettes and other tobacco will always exist, as someone has already said, because their regulation works. However, society should take advantage of this asinine suicidal behavior (it is killing yourself, in a slow manner) and tax it more.
2. The College Board is a private organization, as it has already been said. And perhaps someone might wish to enlighten me in why a monopolized organization can determine my future (The College Board runs a monopoly, the IB program and ACT don't provide a challenge).
3. Perhaps it is time to consider switching to popular vote. Or perhaps his case was just a fluke. Either way, it's in the past.
4. and America's security still remains compromised... If the soldiers had died (and die) had changed something, then perhaps someone could argue that their sacrifices were worthwhile.
You basically just agreed with the article.
but good points none the less.
Disagreeing is not a prerequisite for replying. If you agree with something someone else says, make sure you let them know. It's the only way that people know whether their ideas are reasonable.
Tell me why a lot of our youth smokes ciggarettes although there effects are well documented?
You know, that always puzzled me until I had a conversation with my aunt, who still smokes 2 packs a day although she's dying of lung cancer. I asked her why she didnt stop and her response was, "they're fun"
Make of it what you will
I would just once like to hear someone from our school explain to me exactly why they smoke.
1. Yes, might as well make money off it...
2. Well it "Can" determine your future... you actually have the ultimate decision/responsibility. It is possible to get into college w/out taking anything from Collegeboard.
3. ..."it's in the past." Amen, brother or sister.
4. Definitely worthwhile as we have not had any terrorist attack on our soil since.
...not yet anyways. There were no WMD's found in Iraq and there are several other countries whom we know to be in possesion of these weapons, and yet we do nothing. Yes, maybe we scared them for the time being, but it won't be long until they're return with a blow from which we won't get up. Instead of trying to solve the problem by quelling hatred for America, we have set out to "stop the terrorists" with force. Instead of spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for the sake of conquest, we could be providing aid to the citizens of these countries, we could prove that Americans are not stuck-up, greedy asses, but generous and worthy of support. Or at least we could prove that if it were true. Unfortunately, judging by the latest elections, it may not be.
1) Because the death count is all that matters? The more deaths there are the more we should do to prevent it? Last I checked, death by natural causes contributed pretty heavily to our casualty count. Do you propose we spend more on a search for the Fountain of Youth? Obviously not, that's ridiculous. The point being that deaths are not all the same. We are more likely to respond to a young child with a bullet through his head than an old man with a discolored lung. And don't give this crap about staying impartial to what our actions should be- the very fact that you call these statistics absolutely appalling and ridiculous is a more-than-subtle indication of your allegiance on the issue. This "societal contradiction/oddity" tells me nothing. I would say most people would agree that murder is a much more inhumane way to go than lung cancer. I know, in both scenarios there is a life being lost- but please, don't try to act like these lives were lost under equal circumstances.
I originally intended to comment on your other oddities, but am too tired from examining your all too general first claim. None of these subjects are simply things where a few numbers can say anything. In fact, "hard statistics" are quite often more deceiving than they are helpful.
If someone dies a PREVENTABLE death, why should it matter the means by which a person passes on? Either way, a mother loses her child. It is absolutely barbaric, and inhumane, that you think the first statistic is "crap".
Actually, its not, its true, 20 times more people die from tobacco then from murder; 20 times more funerals, 20 times more grieving mothers, 20 times more widows, instead of sitting here at your computer, you go tell all those mothers that there sons/daughters deaths weren't Hollywood enough, so we shouldn't care.
Wake up. Grow up.
You're talking about a preventable death... and presumably, since the first statistics also included the fact that the government has certain forces to reduce the number of violent deaths, you mean preventable by the government...
Now it's your turn to tell ME something. How's the government supposed to prevent death from smoking? Would you like them to tax cigarettes? Or maybe prohibit the areas in which they can be smoked? Or perhaps ban it all completely? Oh wait! They do those first two things to the best of their abilities. Nearly every public place (you know, the places where the government has control over) prohibits smoking. We already tax cigarettes! In fact, there was a proposition on the last ballot to tax cigarettes (which was voted down in California of all places). And, as two people have already noted, banning them would not help.
There is only ONE more thing that comes to my mind then, that we can do to stop deaths from smoking (err if I previously said deaths by smoking, excuse my poor grammar. Stupid English idioms), and that is to educate our citizens to make smart choices. And we do. Simple anti-smoking propaganda doesn't work. D.A.R.E. was ineffective because America's youth don't want to do what the government tells them. In fact, by championing against cigarettes, the government simply adds to the "edge" of cigarette usage. The only way to prevent tobacco-related deaths is to, through public education, teach. I know, and I'm pretty sure everyone else in Ms. Sato's period 4 Health class three years ago, got that education. I saw nasty lungs and heard the first-hand stories of how cigarettes ruined people's lives. And that was all I, personally, needed.
If you think we should spend more money on education, then that is an entirely separated subject (which has very little direct relationship to your initial statistic). If you think something else, then tell me, what is it?
So yeah, I do believe the nature of the two (murder and tobacco) are completely different. The means DO matter. The easiest way to prevent a tobacco-related death is to not smoke. And that, my Grip Doctrine editor, means that "only you can prevent" (sorry Smoky, it's just so appropriate!) your own tobacco-related death. At some point, we have to stop blaming the government and stop blaming Mrs. Administrator and stop blaming Mr. Teacher and start taking on some of our own responsibility. I know, in a sea of Santa Monica Liberals who have been conditioned by our high school to never take on any personal responsibility, it might be hard to accept that individuals are at fault for making poor choices.
They were dealt (largely) the same cards as everyone else. They chose to play theirs differently. They live with the consequences. I have grown up. I have woken up. I might be a little jaded in my views, but you need to enter the real world. Eventually people need to be held accountable for what they do, mommy isn't always going to be there to hold your hand.
And to clarify my original statement that statistics can be deceiving, I was not referring to the one relating murder to tobacco, but the first claim. The fact that 1 in 3 who smokes dies from it is about as meaningful, as a friend so eloquently put it, as the statistic that 100% of every polar bear that jumps over a cliff greater than 300 feet tall dies.
1) Like ya, you’re right why doesn't somebody create something to control tobacco and alcohol too and maybe firearms....that would be an AWESOME idea. They could call it the ATF; that sounds pretty good. You should write our senators (don't worry you don't have to give me credit for the name, you can take it all).
2) GOD DAMNIT your right again, we should really do something to help minorities, immigrants and low income families. We're not socialist or communist so we can't just redistribute income....but I guess we could give financial aid to those who couldn't afford it.... and we should do something to help minorities and immigrants who aren't as rich get a good education....I don’t know we could call it affirmative action and have first generation kids have a bonus when applying to college. I like your ideas; I'm going to put this in an email to all the senators and college admissions officers. Or you could also realize that you do not need a $500 SAT class, my mom came here from another country, had never seen a multiple choice standardized test before, bought a couple books taught herself because she was determined and got into Stanford on a scholarship, but I'm sure she would have appreciated it being easier.
3) You're right our founding fathers are a bunch of idiots. Why would they create such a dumb system as the Electoral College? I bet they were getting high, sitting around a table well good ol’ TJ said, "you know what would be crazy? If we didn't have a president based on number of votes, but like fairly represented the views of each state"....and his good friend GW probably fell out of his chair, "that's crazy talk. Did you smoke some bad shit?" If someone knew their history they might realize there is a reason for the Electoral College, and that it came as a result of many compromises to appease various different states. Considering their system has not only lasted, but created the most prosperous nation in the world over the last 200 years, I think they created a pretty good system.
4) More American’s were killed in the revolutionary war than were killed under the British. More Americans were killed in the civil war than were killed through succession. According to your statistic, you imply that neither of these wars should have happened, we should still be controlled by the British, we should have 2 different countries, and we should still have slaves. Unless you believe that sometimes we have to go to war to defend principles and ideals. You disagree with us being in Iraq and our reason for being there, that's fine, however in that case the deaths of September 11th aren't related to the deaths in Iraq.
"Please tell me why, WHY ARE WE SO FOOLISH?"
Because you are uniformed, have not paid enough attention to history, and are merely spewing facts in which the 2 things are often not related.
In response to "Diogenes":
I admire your conviction, but your points are slightly off line. Please allow me a moment to explain:
1) In response to my comment about tobacco related deaths, you made a smart-ass comment about how the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) already takes care of these problems. Sorry wise guy, but the ATF merely combats illegal trafficking of Tobacco; and does nothing to combat the use of tobacco/tobacco related deaths. Oh, and please don't try to argue that, my neighbor is an ATF Agent. Sorry bud, nice try.
2) In response to my comment about the wealth gap, you "informed" me about Affirmative Action, and your Mom. I will give it to you, you made a good point, "you can only bring the water to the horse, but the horse has to drink it on it's own". HOWEVER, NOWHERE in my article did I make the statement that we need to be doing more to help out the poor, THE POINT OF THAT STATISTIC WAS TO ILLUMINATE THE FACT THAT THEIR IS HUGE ECONOMIC DISPARITY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND MUCH OF YOUR SUCCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES CENTER AROUND YOUR ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RESOURCES. Yes, of course you can still get into a good college. Yes, you can overcome those obstacles. Yes, your Mom did a remarkable thing. but NO, that was not my point, it never was, so I have no idea what you were responding to when you started to lecture me on affirmative action.
3) You then went on to lecture me on the Electoral College, and told me I didn't know my history. Well... It is kinda funny, but the point you made, is exactly why the Electoral System is OUTDATED. It was created to appease & give equal voices to different states. BECAUSE, when the system was created, people living in different states very frequently had very different lifestyles, and as a result, very different beliefs. But tell me, in our age of technology, where we all use the same media, all eat the same food, all buy the same commercial products, do we really need to recognize the "different" voices from individual states? Why not just let the majority of the people in this country decide who our President should be? As you can see from the stats presented in "Curious Findings", our countries political tendencies are increasingly divided between Urban & Rural residents. No states want to secede from the union, no states are fighting for slavery, so why do we use the electoral college? It is like saying we should vote for ASB Presidents by giving Electoral Votes to our Houses. It is ridiculous. Going back to elementary school days, the MAJORITY VOTE SHOULD WIN.
4) I stated in my article that "More Americans have died fighting in Iraq, than were killed as a result of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks."; and you tried to tell me that "More American’s were killed in the revolutionary war than were killed under the British. More Americans were killed in the civil war than were killed through succession. According to your statistic, you imply that neither of these wars should have happened"
Hmm.....
Please, Tell me you are not comparing the REVOLUTIONARY WAR, and the CIVIL WAR, to the War in IRAQ. You've got to be kidding me.
What are we fighting for in Iraq? Are we fighting for our independence, and right to be a country like we did in the Revolutionary War? Or are we fighting to preserve our nation? like we did in the Civil War?
Please Sir, I love that you took your time to respond so passionately to my article. I hope you continue to do so in the future.
But please don't tell me I need to learn my history, when the points you make are ridiculous, and misinformed.
Next time, make sure you read through the article and understand that point it is making.
Also, I would love for you to write an article regarding your feelings on Affirmative Action, etc.
Respectfully,
Grip Editor #1
"WHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH"
It's me again, well I'm anonymous so I could've been anyone. But I think I have a unique enough style and idea set to be recognizable in a sea of anonymity.
Just quickly, I believe "Diogenes" on that 4th stat wasn't trying to make any grand statement about the scope of our presence in Iraq compared to the revolutionary war or civil war... he was simply pointing out how ridiculous your statistic is.
ALL you told us was that more people died in fighting in Iraq than in the September 11th attacks. With this, I gather you're suggesting that our presence in Iraq is wrong.
HE told you that more people died in the civil/revolutionary wars than in secession/British rule. With this, he gathered that you WOULD suggest that those two wars were wrong.
I think the entire point of that argument was to show how that statistic means next to nothing. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but I don't believe saying more people died in it than in the September 11th attacks has any relevance at all...
I disagree with your statement regarding a sea of anonymity. Just identify yourself and make things easier for everyone. If you truly want people to take seriousy what you say, then you have to show that you take it seriously too. Do this by giving something to distinguish yourself from the sea of anonymity. Give yourself a name. Say to readers "Yes, that's write. I wrote this, and its really really good. Its so good that I'm will to let people judge me by it."
Until then, you really will just be lost in the sea of anonymity.
I'm not here to put a name to an idea.
I'm here to put out an idea.
A good idea is a good idea, regardless of the author (or lack there of).
A bad idea is a bad idea.
I know that it will be nearly impossible to put an identity to someone who only posts anonymous comments on an online blog (where, if you use a pseudonym, your identity is already hidden). That is how I like it.
I don't desire an identity or recognition. I desire a smarter, more informed, more articulate country.
i just have a quick thing to say in response to one of the many "anonymous"....
"4. Definitely worthwhile as we have not had any terrorist attack on our soil since."
sorry, but wtf?! when was there a terrorist attack on our soil BEFORE 9/11? sure, they happened, but not very frequently, and nothing close to what happened on 9/11. the war in iraq has done nothing to prevent another...
Emavieve...
I won't go into it here, as clinton's guilt and (using the same reasoning in dealing with bush) lying got us 9/11 in the first place.....HOW ABOUT TERRORIST TRYING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993!! Geez, do some research before you post....for the rest, I'll refer to the other articles here if you really want to be enlightened. "An Army of...", and "How About That".
dear anonymous,
1) i'm not pointing fingers at whose fault it is. your comment about clinton is completely irrelevant.
2) there are many terrorist attacks attempted quite frequently. governments usually catch them in time. do some research yourself...
3) I looked up a list of every terrorist attack in the 20th century. i researched.
and why not attach a name to yourself?
emavieve
1). Irrelevant? avoiding capture of Bin Laden is irrelevant to 9/11...please explain how?
2). Agreed, governments do prevent attacks. Too bad we didn't do much of that in the 1990s.
"Usually" catch them in time...Imagine if we had the patriot act pre-9/11....we could have caught that as well. Don't make a blanket statement, give examples. So, go research again
3). Ok, and what did you find out?
No need for a name...don't need recognition, and frankly unimportant. My opinions/thoughts/views and COMMENTS are most important, this is a Message board, not eharmony or myspace.
Actually, please read and post on the "Army of one..." article as I really don't want to repeat myself and bore the hell out of everybody else :)
Hey you can't blame me, I pretend I'm Canadian.
Great facts. But in response to the gang task forces, shouldn't we try to prevent as many deaths as possible? We can't regualte smokers because it's not violent and they are making their own decisions. Gang members kill OTHERS.
ya, united states is a fucked up country, lol
Shit It really provides a great atmosphere of open mindness and public debate when you cant disagree with an editor without fear of a page long rebuttle so quaintly signed "respectfully".
-Respectfully
Everyone
So if I am an editor I can't defend my statements?
I wrote the article, I am going to respond to comments.
and I encourage all speak up if you don't agree with an opinion someone voices.
It is OK to disagree.
That is why we created the Grip Doctrine.
To give every person, and every idea, a voice.
Signed,
Josh Miller
Grip Editor #1
But if in defending your points, your tone is such that it discourages response are you not defeating the purpose?
Yes, I can agree.
If I am presenting my ideas in a offensive tone, yes, it is counterproductive.
I was not aware I was expressing my opinions in that manner, and I will be more mindful of that in the future.
I will not however, sacrifice my voice.
but I will be more conscious.
- Josh Miller
I think you guys are doin a chill job so far,,, shits tight
yah got some good stuff up here
My initial comments were not aimed at you (yours were just a springboard) but at the Grip Doctrine contributors in general.
The main point, everything else aside, was to be conscientious. Conscientious of how you are reacting and how your are being reacted to.
I respect the forthcomingness of the Editors (and others) who use their names for even with anonymity some may be dissuaded from speaking merely by possibility of a hostile reaction.
I posted twice Anonymously before.
◊•◊•◊
∞
Fiasco
My ∆ owns your infinity.
Post a Comment