Re: Voting - be sure you understand what you are voting for

["Tom Harais" <tjhemh@domain.elided>]

Al:

Even if we were "wild hot-rodders" what does it matter? 

The "ban it all" folks, simply find that if they don't want/need/use or
understand something, and they hear something bad about it anyway, they'll
just vote to "ban-it" since it's no skin off thier nose and they percieve
no effect to themselves. What they don't see is that, just because it's not
pertinent to them, doesn't mean the minority that has an interest is not to
be considered, or, some indirect links between that which they will vote to
ban and themselves.

Where the "greens" get it all wrong is that they use weak, anectdotal
evidence without proper science to start with, and they see themselves as
"above" the problem. They fail to see that we are all part of the problem
as well as part of the solution. Hey, ole Jacques Cousteau burned plenty of
fossil fuel and dumped plenty of waste into the ocean while he was cruising
around on the Calypso studying what man's affects on the ocean were. He,
like all of us, was a product of his own time. He was just more insightfull
about the way we were treating the ocean than most.

Lots of people think that since we live in a democracy (or a republic for
those of you that are going to argue about the semantics) that the
"majority rules". And yet, the founding fathers went out of their way to
protect the minority from the majority in cases where there simply was no
great societal interest. They did this by balancing and limiting the powers
of the government and with the Bill of Rights.

But, and since Hofstetter is "off-digest" I can throw this in with little
fear of retirbution, I blame the teachers of the 60's and 70's for this
NIMBY  - "lets ban the tool" attitude. When I was in grade and high school,
if one child misbehaved we were all punished. It was easier for the teacher
to maintain control this way than it was to "ferret out" and deal with the
offender. One kid mouths off in algebra class, and we all found ourselves
running laps on the track. This was not good for them to teach us. 

I think this attitude has carried over into general society in America.
Patrick Purdy freaks out and shoots a whole bunch of asian decended school
childern in Stockton. We don't deal with the individual or his particular
sickness. Heck, almost no one even mentioned that there was a racial intent
to Mr. Purdy's actions although those who knew him were aware of his biases
and blaming of asians for his percieved slights. No, we just ban the weapon
he used because the majority doesn't want/need/use or understand them and
it's easier than dealing with the real problems involved and it makes
everyone "feel good" like they did something to remedy the situation.
Besides, the owners of such weapons were such a tiny minority, that the
majority just rolled right over them.

Same is true of "old cars", IHs and "hot-rods" if you will. They are of
minority interest. The majority doesn't give a hoot about them. But, some
special interest group comes out with something negative about them based
on a single measurement of smog production or a single bad action by the
owner of one and proposes a "ban". And, the majority, which doesn't
want/need/use or understand them agrees and supports a ban. The minority
gets "rolled" right over, even though they've really done nothing to hurt
anyone else.

The way to combat this, is as you say, to be carefull who you vote for or
what you wish for as well as to seek tolerance within ourselves. And, when
an interest group attacks a minority interest and asks for the ban of that
interest, MAKE THEM SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THEIR CASE. Stating that older
cars pollute more is easy. We enacted laws requireing that newer cars emit
less of certain compounds. We know that newer means less of those compounds
emitted - at least at the time of manufacture. That's the law. But,
quantifying how much impact on air pollution there is from the use of older
vehicles on the road is a whole different story. Plus, there are other
societal effects that must be measured and balanced. Economics, the
"pollution" saved by using an older vehicle up, rather than building a new
one (i.e. how much air pollution is created smelting the new steel for a
new auto?). How much are these older vehicles actually operated annualy,
compared to say the commuter with thier new Honda driving 100 miles per
work day? And on and on. This is the standard that all thinking folks
should apply to any proposed bans of anything. What scientific proof is
there of the object, in and of itself, being so harmfull as to necesitate
it's removal from society?

Study after study shows that the number of weapons in the hands of American
citizens that are misused in crimes is a tiny fraction of the number of of
weapons owned. And yet, the answer to misuse most often heard is "ban
them". This is the old "punish everyone for the misdeed and undesireable
actions of the few" that I mentioned as being prevelant in my schooling as
a child. Most folks simply want/need/use or understand guns. So, banning
them is no big deal.

Studies have shown the ill effects on health of cigarette smoking. Many
have even shown that "second hand smoke" has deleterious effects on the
health of non-smokers. The answer: "ban them". Beleive me, I hate cigarette
smoke with a passion. I don't like to be around it and I certainly will
never smoke. But, I will not support bans or restrictions against it.
Smokers and non-smokers alike should be able to live around each other and
tolerate each other at some level. Your smoking may harm your health, but I
shouldn't let that influence me to ask for laws to stop you from making
that choice. If it becomes socially unacceptable to smoke (and it is out
here where I live) than so be it. But enacting bans, laws, restrictions,
that's not how a free society operates.

But, through all of this "guilt by association - let's ban it" mentality,
did you notice the exceptions that we have all been taught to make? It's
easy to ban objects, but not acceptable to blame people. When we find our
prison population full of diproportionate numbers of a given type of
person, do we go out and say 'arrest all people of that
gender/ethnicity/race/religion because they are more prone to commit crimes
than anyone else'? Do we "ban" them? No, we look further and come up other
reasons for this being the case.

By the way, lest anyone think I was making some racist commentary; our
prisons are 99.XX% inhabited by males. Does this mean that men are the only
real criminals in our society? Should we "ban" males because of this
apparent propensity to commit serious misdeeds?

Anyway Al, you are so very right. We need to watch who we vote for and what
we support, lest the well meaning majority take the simple way out and ban
some object that a minority finds usefull. 

Here in California, there is once again an anti-trapping measure on the
ballot. I personally don't trap. Nor, do I like to think of a small mammel
having a steel jawed trap snap shut on it's paw and having it lay there
wounded and exposed to the elements as well as predators, waiting for a
trapper to return. But, I'm not about to support a measure like this. I
don't know enough about trapping. I probably directly or indirectly benefit
from trapping activities in ways that I don't even know. I do hunt, and
hunting is also the killing of small animals and most of those against
trapping, would come after us hunters as soon as they get trapping banned.
Most of all, who am I to judge those estimated two hundred or so soles in
this state, who trap? Even the Audobon society has come out against this
measure because they want fish and game folks to be allowed to use trapping
to control "non-native" species whose presence is decimating endangered
natural species as the red fox is doing to some endangered shore birds
around here.

Tom H.