"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The New Socialists

My good friend Rycke (pronounced Reeka) sent me the following some time ago. She and I think very much alike about many subjects, but especially about government; that it should secure rights, not violate them. Rycke sent me this message, but she was responding to a question in an email from another of her friends.

"Where do you go from here? If, as you say, it should be unacceptable to society that children are homeless, what would you do about it? What should society do about it?

"Society, not government. They are separate spheres of influence. Society is voluntary interactions between people, the 'private' realm. When people use force against one another in the private realm, they are being anti-social.

"Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. It is the realm of forced interactions. Nearly everything it does is funded by force, so if you ask it to do anything, your are forcing others to pay for it, even if you pay for it, too. The only proper use of force is for defense of self and others: securing rights. '[T]o secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,' the Declaration says. government exists to protect society from its anti-social elements, who use fore and fraud against their fellows.

"When government expands beyond that purpose, when it's allowed to fund or do anything that enough of the right people think is a good idea, it becomes anti-social, because it is using force improperly and intruding on the social realm. It's pretty anti-social to force other people to fund your pet charity, or your business, or your lifestyle. It's pretty anti-social to tell other people how to run their businesses, apart from punishing fraud and noxious pollution. It's pretty anti-social to force other people to send their children to your schools, or to force other people to fund those schools. It's pretty anti-social to tell other people that they can't make, use, or possess particular substances; bust into their homes to search for those substances; kidnap them, steal their goods and money, and keep them in captive slavery, just for having those substances.

"Many people who support such things have called themselves socialists. But really, they and many of their so-called 'conservative' brethren are anti-socialists.

"As government grows beyond its proper bounds, society withers. As the use of force expands, voluntary social interaction is constrained. Those of us who want to restrict government to securing rights thereby want society to take back its realm from government. We are the new socialists."

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Breast-feeding...In Public! Oh My God!

Today I read an article by Debbie Cafazzo, an MSNBC contributor, about the debate, if it can be called that, over breast-feeding in public: "Food or lewd? Breast-feeding reveals divide."

Personally, I don't understand the problem. But then, as my url says "logic-v-emotion." I try to come down on the logic side whenever I can. Breast-feeding is, of course, logical. Mother's milk is the best food for a baby. It was designed (if you believe in a creator god) or evolved (if you don't) as the only food a baby could eat before the modern era. It's full of all sorts of good things like lauric acid--a saturated fat that boosts the baby's immune system (and which soy product substitutes don't have). Mother's milk is also rich in cholesterol, which is necessary for healthy physical and mental development. Babies get hungry when they get hungry and have to be fed at that time, whether it is in public or at home.

Judaism and Christianity have played a major role in the illogical, emotionally-based reaction to public nudity in general and to public breast-feeding in particular. It started out with the Adam and Eve myth, where they eat of the fruit of knowledge and realize that they are...naked! Then, when Christianity took over as the State Religion in Rome in the 4th century, the idea of nudity as nudity being sinful gradually came to be accepted. Hell, even in the early part of the 20th century exposed male nipples were considered to be indecent.

Underneath our clothes, we are all naked. (Oh my God, don't tell me that. That is just so disgusting.) Nudity is a state of nature and it is not evil, sinful, indecent, or obscene. It's just our natural bodies and skin. Men's bodies and women's bodies have not changed noticeably in couple hundred thousand years, or more. So what is the big deal? When you make a body part sinful, then it become sexual. As a comedian, years ago, pointed out, if we considered women's earlobes to be sexual objects, like we do breasts, then women would be required to cover them up in public.

Come on people. Babies deserve mother's milk, if mom can breast-feed (not all can). And a naked breast is not big deal, especially when feeding a baby. In nudist colonies the sight of all those breasts and genitalia, day-after-day, certainly doesn't cause a sexual frenzy. If you believe that public breast-feeding is sinful, indecent, or otherwise wrong, you are one illogical and emotionally reactive person.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Here's a Trick Question

Do UFO's exit? If so, what are they? The first person with the correct answers, will win a free copy of my "The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality." E-mail, D.M. Mitchell at todscwaml@hotmail.com. (Damn! this is too easy...why do I give out clues?)

The Myth of Rights: Property Taxes

When it comes to buying real estate, you can never truly and fully own that property. Property tax is the reason why. If you pay off the mortgage, if you own the property free and clear, you will still have to pay an annual tax on that property, merely for owning it. If you don't pay that tax, the government will take it away from you...and government agents will use deadly force if necessary. So, in reality, the property that you think you own you are actually renting from the government. The government is the true owner.

But, you say, the government needs money to operate and property taxes are a major source of their revenues. Sure, but just how much government do we need? If you have an automobile and use the roads, okay then, gasoline tax and vehicle registration tax to pay for the roads is fine by me. If you use the city water, sewer, and waste removal services, then fine, a tax for services rendered is great. Same for the police and fire departments, which we may not always need, but definitely want to be there when we do need those services. And, if you, or your children are going to school, you have to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch (TINSTAAFL). By all that is logical and right, those who use the government provided services should pay for them, but for nothing more. (This could be a way to reduce the size of government and governmental waste.)

I'm not against a sales tax on property. After all, if I buy a shirt I will pay a sales tax. But I won't pay it again the next year merely for owning that shirt, so why should real estate be taxed indefinitely just because it exists? And then there is the issue of retired people on fixed incomes not being able to afford to pay the ever-increasing property tax on their paid-off real estate and having to sell the home they have lived in for 40 or 50 years, one in which they raised their children and put a lot of tender loving care into.

"Yeah, that's right old folks. You have to sell your home and move to some crappy apartment...and we don't give a sh**, because we are the taxmen...we are the government...and we actually own this place. So, pack up and get out, or we'll throw you out!"

Hey! That's happened...many times.

A sales tax on real estate could be high, in the double digits, and could be paid in yearly amounts over the length of the mortgage. Examples: Real estate = $100,000 times 75% = $75,000 divided by 30 years = $2500 per year. $200,000 times 75% = $150,000 divided by 30 years = $5,000 per year. $500,000 times 75% = $375,000 divided by 30 years = $12,500 per year. And, of course, if a house gets sold for a higher price--and real estate values always go up over time--then the tax gets refigured to the new, higher amount.

But--and this is a very important but in a truly free and liberty-loving society--if and when the mortgage is paid off, and the taxes paid too, then the real estate should be free and clear and the owner should truly be the owner of that property. It would be a "freehold." Is this likely to happen? Hell no! And that, my friends, is why I say that the concept of "rights" is only a myth. If you cannot freely own property without fear of the government taking it away from you because of an on-going, never-ending tax lien, then you really don't own that property and you will never have that "right"...among others.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Excerpts from My Essay: "The Myth of Inaliendable Rights . . . ."

The mere use of the presently illegal drugs does not cause crime, that is, violent or larcenous behavior. Many of the presently illegal drugs were legally available at the beginning of the 20th Century. There was no criminal justice problem associated with their use. There still are no large studies correlating drug use with real criminal, rights-violating behavior. Such studies just do not exist.

If it is your inalienable right to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco, even though they may cause you harm, then it must also be your equal right to use any other chemical substance you wish, even though those substances may also cause you harm. Inalienable rights are not “allowed” or “given out” by the government. Inalienable rights are yours because you exist. However, you have no right to harm other people, or the property of other people, unless it is in the defense of yourself, your loved ones, your property, or innocent others.

But the issue here is really not about the use or possible abuse of mind-altering or addictive drugs, alcohol and tobacco included. The issue here is about the absolute and inalienable right to choose how you want to live your life. It’s about your own personal moral code. It’s about having the right to behave any way you choose, just so long as you do not violate the rights of others. That’s what a truly free and liberty-loving society is all about. If you don’t have that right, even if it means choosing drugs, then you are not a truly free and independent citizen even if you choose not to use drugs, and all the talk about rights is a myth. If the government has the legitimate power to outlaw personal moral behavior that does not harm or endanger others, then what is it that the government can’t outlaw if it had a majority of legislators voting for it? The precedent set in the war on drugs is more than dangerous. It has the very real potential to be, eventually, absolutely deadly to true freedom and liberty.

(Beware pure democracy, an example of which is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Inalienable rights are not up for a majority vote, or for any vote at all.)

Saturday, January 27, 2007

In Answer to "somewhere joe"

I was asked a couple of questions about my last post by "somewhere joe." The following is my answer to those questions.

Olive oil is a monounsaturate oil, which is actually rather healthy. That's why it's been used for thousands of years. The biggest problems are the polyunsaturates such as corn, safflower, or canola oils. They don't take high heat very well. It will create a high percentage of free radicals, which are absolutely bad for us. Monounsaturates are better for cooking, but best eaten uncooked. The naturally saturated fats such as lard, tallow, and coconut oils are much more stable at high heats. Also, coconut oil, butter, and mother's milk contain lauric acid, a saturated fat that helps to fight bad bacteria. Mother's milk also contains a high percentage of cholesterol, a necessary element for proper growth and mental development. There are other beneficial agents in naturally saturated fats too. Then, there is the Framingham Massachusetts Heart Study in which the director of the study had to admit that the people who ate the most saturated fat, calories, and cholesterol were the healthiest, with the most energy, and who lived the longest with the least problems.

As to life spans, where would the average pill-popping "senior" today be without the pills, surgery, and other life-extending medical intervention that did not exist in our grandfather's and great-grandfather's day? I believe that our present life-span has been "propped up", so to speak, by modern medicine, and that we would live even longer if we ate natural foods rather than the processed foods of today, full of sugar, white flour, and polyunsaturated fats, but that without modern medical intervention our life spans would be no better, maybe worse than that of our grandfathers.

Further, I once did my own (unscientific) survey of famous people born 200 years ago or more; people like Ben Franklin. I found a high percentage that lived well into their 70's and 80's. Of course, these were the more wealthy people of society who had access to sufficient food and a wider variety variety of foods than the average person. Basically, in the "bad old days", if you didn't die from a childhood disease, a plague, had a serious injury or wound, especially if you had access to a variety of good nutritious foods, you could live to be as old as anyone today, maybe longer.

But don't take my word for it. Click on the Weston A. Price Foundation site in my previous post and have a look around.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

How Healthy Are Polyunsaturated Fats?

"Healthy subjects placed on high polyunsaturated diets for four-week periods have exhibited higher levels of free radical activity and blood clotting markers than those on high-saturated diets. In animal studies, polyunsaturated vegetable oils consistently promote cancer growth; an eight-year trial with real live humans that observed significantly higher cancer incidence in the polyunsaturated group suggests this phenomenon is not merely confined to lab rats.1 This same study, by the way, showed little difference in extent of atherosclerosis among autopsied subjects from the high-saturate and high-polyunsaturate diets. If anything, the aortas of those eating the polyunsaturated-enhanced diet tended to show more plaque build-up.

"1. Dayton S, et al. A controlled clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications of atherosclerosis. Circulation, 1969; XL: II-1-63."

The above was taken from the end of an article by Chris Masterjohn, Saturated Fat Attack, at the Weston A. Price Foundation site: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/saturated-fat-attack.html. It was written, as a comment, by Anthony Colpo, author of The Great Cholesterol Con, a book which exposes the fallacy of the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Mr. Colpo says he has no financial ties or responsibility to any food, drug, medical, or supplement businesses.

History shows that the incidence of cancer and heart disease was low 100 years ago when our grandparents and great-grandparents were eating a high saturated fat diet. Only with the promotion of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, especially hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated ones, which started in the 1940’s, did the epidemic of those two diseases begin. The processed foods industries, including highly processed vegetable oils, are multi-billion dollar per year concerns…and they are concerned with making money, not your health. Go to the above link to the Weston A. Price Foundation and look around. It could be good for you…very good.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Question 10 from my 52 Perverse Questions

10. Assume you are an extremely bigoted, anti-gay heterosexual. You must choose between (A) having your infant son grow up to be an out-of-the-closet, openly gay man, but one who will be able to avoid any serious diseases and who will live a long and happy life, dying peacefully at the age of 90, or (B) he will grow up to be a strong heterosexual, but at age 25 he will go to prison for 25 years, after which he will go on to live another 25 years with less than average happiness and health.

My 52 PQ's are more than just perverse* questions. They are a call to question authority for the sake of authority, and to use logic versus emotion to guide one through the greater part of life. What is right and wrong behavior? How do we decide? Do we just accept what we have been told without thinking about it or do we think for ourselves, using logic, then decide? The questions, many of them sexual and controversial in nature, are designed to allow one to act (the use of logic) rather than to react (the use of emotion); to actually stop and think about what constitutes right and wrong behavior and why is it right or wrong.

* Perverse: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary)

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Nuremberg Nazis

After World War II, trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany for several Nazis. Many of the Nazis claimed that they were only following orders and could not, therefore, be held responsible for their actions. That claim was quickly put to rest. What came out of the Nuremberg trials was a consensus that government officials, including those in the military, had a moral obligation to not commit acts that they knew, or should have known, were illegal under international law.

Nuremberg Principle III states: “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.” Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

In a Fox News article (Friday, May 21, 2004, by Liza Porteus, Prison Abuse Soldiers: We Were Following Orders, about what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq) William G. Eckhardt, a military law expert at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, had this to say: "You obey orders when they're given to you with the presumption that orders are lawful," and "If the person for some reason knew it was illegal ... and still obeyed it, he could not use the defense of obedience of orders,"

My pet term for any government official, from the lowest to the highest, who violates the rights of citizens, is Nuremberg Nazis. I apply this mostly to officials in the United States, where we are supposed to have a history of and a reverence for that mythical principle known as inalienable rights. That is, if a government official—policeman, prosecutor, judge, legislator, etc.—passes or enforces a law that violates the inalienable rights of citizens they are Nuremberg Nazis. For them to say, I was following the law is not a defense to their guilt. How can a law that violates the rights of otherwise honest, peaceful, non-threatening citizens be legal?

It is interesting to note that the term “inalienable rights” has never been definitively defined; not by Congress and not by any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. I am a presumptuous person, and I presume to so define inalienable rights.

Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property, that does not immediately or directly endanger other people or their property, that does not disturb the peace or creates a public nuisance, especially if done in private and on private property is the inalienable right of all adult citizens

If we, as adults, don’t have the right to the complete ownership of our minds and our bodies, with the inalienable right to use ourselves as we wish where, in so doing, we do not violate the rights of others, regardless of how wrong or immoral those others might view us and our behavior, then we are not truly free citizens and the United States is not a truly liberty-loving, rights-upholding nation. The laws prohibiting consensual adult drug behavior or declaring certain types of sexual behavior to be illegal (morality laws based on some people's religious or personal moral beliefs), where the behavior does not violate the rights of others, are illegitimate laws. Those who pass those laws, enforce those laws, and uphold those laws are not only our moral dictators, but they are, in fact, Nuremberg Nazis.

If enough of us protest and demand our full inalienable rights back, we just may be able to try those Nuremberg Nazis for their rights-violating crimes.

Friday, January 19, 2007

To "somewhere joe"

I have tried to contact you by email to say thanks for the comments, but my hotmail "postmaster" says that it can't deliver to your "address". In any case, thank you for your last comment regarding "incurious attitudes." I don't like labels, but if I had to have a political label it would be Libertarian. Are you familiar with libertarians? Here is a favorite quote of mine from George Washington:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Danger of an "Incurious Attitude"

It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual’s incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500.”
Albert J. Nock

In 2006, the “incurious attitude” of the people towards the “phenomenon of the State,” if anything, is even stronger than in 1935. Few citizens question from where or from whom the government gets its legitimate power, or why the government should be allowed to control personal aspects of the lives of its citizens even when those aspects do not violate the rights of others. The average citizens merely accepts that the phenomenon, that is, the power of the government, is a given, just as they believed that the power of the Church in 1500 was a given.

The government passes laws (as did the Church) which it then enforces upon pain of fines, imprisonment, or, if you should resist too strongly, death. It would be wise to never forget that you cannot equate law and justice. Law does not always equal that which is right or just…the protection of our inalienable rights. At one time, in the United States of America, it was legal to own people. The United States Supreme Court upheld the laws that allowed slavery. Those laws were neither right nor just. They were perverse and hideous. So was the Supreme Court for upholding those laws.

Quite often the decisions of the Supreme Court are merely reflections of what either the powerful or a majority of the people, at a particular time, believes to be correct behavior and have nothing to do with absolute truths and justice. When laws violate the inalienable rights of citizens there can be no justice. Citizens do not have a duty or obligation to obey such laws. Indeed, good citizens have a duty and obligation to see that such laws are struck down and removed from the books and that those who have participated in making and upholding those laws are removed from office, as those people are perverse and direct threats to the inalienable rights of all citizens.

The above was exerpted from my booklet, 52 Perverse Questions: What Would You Do If You Had To?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

somewhere joe's palindrome

Oh, cameras are macho. Thanks "joe".

Religion: The Great Equalizer

Life is not fair. This is a truism. It can be "acts of God" or "Mother Nature" unfair: Earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. Or it can be acts of "mankind" unfair: Murder, rape, robbery, arson, bigotry, wars, terrorism, etc.

Another aspect of "mankind" unfair is that it has not gone unnoticed that some bad people--some of them very bad indeed--get away with murder, or whatever else they get away with, and die a peaceful death in their dotage. Or, they gain great wealth unfairly and enjoy that wealth all of their lives. While others, good, hard-working, honest people, have bad things happen to them. Why do some bad people get away with it and some good people get the worst of it?

That's where religion comes in. It is the great equalizer. It tells us that the bad people don't really get away with it. They will be punished in the "next life." And the good people will be rewarded for being good. See? It's simple. Justice will be done. Now, don't you feel better?

What I don't get is this. Where is the justice when you, or a loved one gets killed or horrible mutilated by a so-called "natural" disaster...also known, as I mentioned above, as "an act of God." I mean, if someone I know, a loved one, gets murdered, I want justice. If they die in a tornado, don't I have a right to demand justice too? Dead is dead, whether by an assassin's knife or bullet or whether by the consequences of "an act of God." Would my grief be any less? After all, who created the tornado?...or for that matter, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, and tsunamis?

Oh, I can see some of you now. You think I'm being blasphemous. No, I'm merely being logical, rather than illogically emotional. Okay, as quickly as I can, I will explain the logic. According to Christian dogma, God created the universe, including this world. God is also supposed to be all-knowing. That means It (Is God a he? If so, does that mean he has male genitalia? If so, for what purpose? This "he" stuff doesn't have anything to do with ancient male-dominated desert-dwelling, barely out of the bronze-age, tribal patriarchs...does it?)

Where was I? Oh yes. If god created everything and is all-knowing, then It knows everything before it happens (otherwise It is not "all-knowing", and cracks begin to appear in the visage of god). That means god created--by creating Earth--the natural disasters that kill thousands of people every year. (But also, think of what this means in the good versus evil, god versus the devil controversy.) So, logically, god knows who is going to die, when, where, and how--by "an act of God" or by...well, if god created men and know what they are going to do ahead of time, because It is all-knowing, then men who kill are tantamount to committing "acts of God"...because if you or I create something and know ahead of time exactly what that thing is going to do, when it's going to do it, and how, then wouldn't we be the creators of that action and responsible for it? Should a lesser responsibility be allowed for the "Creator of the Universe?" Or are we just so damned afraid of It that we bow down to It, hoping that It won't hurt us?

But don't let it worry you over much. We'll all get justice in the here-after...except for people killed by "acts of god." I mean, in what court could we prosecute god?

Tuesday, January 16, 2007


Here is an interesting little twist of language, at least to me it's interesting. A palindrome is a word, line, verse, and so forth, that reads the same forward and backward. Here is an example: A man, a plan, a canal, Panama! Here it is again all in lower case and without punctuation: amanaplanacanalpanama. Another example is: Madam, I'm Adam. Do you know of any other palindromes? Can you make up any of your own? (I admit, neither of the two examples above are my creation.)

Monday, January 15, 2007

A Short Discussion About Incest

“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”
Alfred Kinsey

There is a whole genre of erotic or pornographic literature which deals with the subject of incest, indicating that there are those out there who either participate in incestuous affairs or who fantasize about it. Now, a fantasy is not reality and most people know the difference and how to keep the two apart. In the book Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving (1982), the authors say this about fantasies, at page 274: “Our research also indicates that for many people, transforming fantasy to fact is unsatisfactory, resulting at times in a complete loss of the erotic value of the fantasy.” At page 275 they go on to quote Karen Shanor in a book entitled The Fantasy Files: “Only if the acting-out experience is amazingly good does the [fantasy] remain prominent. . . . Most of the time reality does not live up to the excitement of the fantasy. . . .”

Richard A. Posner, in his book Sex and Reason (1992), at page 200, says this: “Sibling incest would be rare even if not prohibited, because persons brought up together from early childhood rarely find each other sexually attractive. . . . But some siblings are not brought up together, and others do not possess the avoidance instinct.” Any children who are “brought up together from early childhood rarely find each other sexually attractive.” This includes adoptive children; children not genetically related to each other or their parents.

In footnote 36 of the same page, Posner goes on to say--noting the work of Pierre L. van der Berghe, “Human Inbreeding Avoidance: Culture in Nature,” 6 Behavioral and Brain Sciences 91, 96-98 (1983)--that in early childhood children are “imprinted” in such a way that the thought of having sex with someone they were brought up with will be repulsive to them, making sibling incest rare.

However, in a father-daughter incestuous relationship, this type of imprinting only affects the daughter. But this then assumes, as is so often the case, that the relationship begins when the child is a minor, usually quite young, which, of course would be a violation of her rights. And, as Posner says in his footnote, many teenagers who run away from home are running from their father’s incestuous behavior.

As to early separation, where siblings, or children and their parents are separated when the child is at an early age, quite often there is no incest avoidance if they are reunited as adults. In fact, there can be the opposite effect, leading to consensual incestuous affairs. (The Wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attration
discusses this phenomenon more fully.)

The above is an excerpt from Section V of my "52 Perverse Questions: What Would You Do If You Had To?"

As part of my curious mind's questing for truth (objective reality)I wondered why, in our modern society, adult consensual incest is prohibited? Obviously, there is the problem of reinforcement of bad recessive genes. But, as Mr. Posner pointed out in his book, that can happen to any couple, related or not, and we don't require a genetic srceening test before we get married. But as Mr. Posner also pointed out, most people understand that risk and with the contraceptives available today, most consensual incestuous couples would wish to and could avoid pregnancies. (Of course, not all children born from incestuous sex are genetically damaged.)

In a world that allowed full adult rights (a mythical world in which the principle of "inalienable rights" exists) there would be no secular reason to stop adults from having sex even if they were closely related. I don't have any incestuous thoughts about my sister. And, to the best of my belief, neither does she about me. We were raised together in a close and loving family and were "incubated" against that behavior. But, incest, like any other consensaul adult behavior that has been outlawed--illegal drug use, gambling, prostitution--still goes on. (Not to be confused with non-consensual behavior such as murder, rape, child molesting, robbery, etc., all of which violate the rights of non-consenting others and rightfully should be prosecuted and punished.)

My point is simply this: If it involves adults only who wish to be in incestuous relationships, that is their business, not the government's. If their friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. know about it and wish to shun them, that's their right. If the incestuous couple are stupid or not careful and produce children, then they are fully responsible for the care of those children, like any couple should be, whether the children are genetically healthy or not.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Mmm! Mmm! Butter, Lard, and Saturated Fats in General

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a blessing for those of us who think that the giant processed foods industry might just be selling us on foods that are detrimental to our health. The mantra has been, for many years now, decades really, that saturated fats are bad for us and that we should avoid them like the plague. Strangely, though, 100 years ago, when there was a much higher intake of butter, lard, coconut oil, and other saturated fats, there was little heart disease and cancer in relation to the size of the population.

Mary Enig, PhD, an internationally know researcher into how fats and oils affect human biochemistry and vice-president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, tells us that fatty acids (fats and oils) such as "myristic acid" is used by the body in the stabilization of various proteins, including many used by our immune systems to fight cancer-causing tumors in the lungs. This saturated fat is found in butter and palm oil, among other sources.

Lauric acid, which is found in mother's milk, coconut oil, and butter has antimicrobial functions, among others. That is, it helps our immune systems to fight bad microbes. (That's why it's in mother's milk.)

Stearic acid, found mainly in animal fats (also chocolate--but watch out for all the sugar used in commonly consumed chocolate) is one of the two main fatty acids preferred by the heart for proper functioning.

Then there is the Framingham, Massachusetts Heart Study. The longest running study of diet and the effects of various fats and cholesterol-containing foods upon heart health. The director of the study, Dr. William Castelli, was forced to admit that, "In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active." Archives of Internal Medicine, July 1992, 152:(7):1371-1372.

The processed vegetable oil business and the processed food industry relying on these vegetable oils are multi-billion dollar per year businesses. They have a lot of monetary influence with legislators and doctors alike. But do their profits come before your health?

The Weston A. Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org)has a big web site. If you are interested in learning more, you might want to start out with the following two pages from that site: The Importance of Saturated Fats for Biological Functions: www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/import_sat_fat.html and The Skinny on Fats: www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

Friday, January 12, 2007

Fly the Friendly Skies

A new plan by the Department of Homeland Security for ensuring safe airline travel is being discussed at high levels. This plan has two components: First, no carry on luggage, no carry on anything; second, flying naked.

That's right, in the buff, sans clothes, totally nude, not even shoes...especially no shoes. Remember the Richard Reid, the would be "shoe bomber."

Here's how it would work. When you arrive at the airport you will check your luggage, if any, including wallets, purses, anything that you would normally have been allowed to carry on to the airplane. That would even include watches, rings, necklaces, earrings, all things carried by hand or on your person. That way, no female suicide bomber could, say, wear a big bauble-type necklace that is actually disguised plastic explosives. No male suicide bomber could wear an expensive looking watch that could morph into a deadly stiletto-type knife.

After checking all items you would proceed to the boarding gate area where you would disrobe. After being run through another x-ray machine,your clothes would be sealed into a plastic bag and an identification sticker would be placed on it before being stowed in a special compartment on the plane. (The boarding attendants would use one of those "Space Bag" gizmos to suck out all the air so every one's clothing bags could be stored in an amazingly small space of only 27 cubic feet. Now you see why watches must be separated from the clothing. If terrorists figure out how to make clothing from explosives, a fake watch could be used to detonate them.)

I know that this seems like an extreme, possibly unnecessary measure, but your security is our nation's number one priority. I mean, what's a little nudity compared to the risk of being blown up in the sky, right? Besides, the human body has changed little over the last 100,000 years or so. There shouldn't be any surprises as to anatomy, so what's the big deal. And, you will finally see, in no uncertain terms, that few--extremely few--people meet up to the standards of physical fitness that inundated us through the TV, magazines, and movies. You should feel pretty good about that. (Airline crew members will be fully clothes as always, of course.)

Upon arriving at your destination and deboarding the plane, you will be given your bag of clothing, to be put on in the boarding pass area, as other travelers are undressing in preparation for their flights. Now, the only thing to really worry about is whether all your luggage and personal items actually were put on the same plane as you or not. But we're working on that. Besides, what's a few hundred, or thousands, of dollars of luggage and personal items compared to knowing that finally you can fly in safety and not have to worry about terrorists targeting your flight.

By the way, did I happen to mention that there will also be a body cavity search for hidden explosives that a terrorist might . . . .

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

There is no Left or Right when it come to government and politics.

For years now, it has been common to refer to a person's politics as being left-wing or right-wing--leftist or rightist. The leftists, taken to an extreme, are generally known as communists; to a lesser extreme they are called socialists; then come the liberals (not to be confused with the classical liberals). In the United States, the Democrats are considered to be the liberals.

The rightists, taken to an extreme, are generally thought to be kings and dictators; to a lesser extreme, capitalists and large corporations. Then come the conservatives. In the United States, the Republicans are considered to be the conservatives.

All of this left-right nonsense got started in the Frech Revolution, in which those members of the legislature with liberal ideas generally sat to the left of the president, and those of the royalty and, therefore, conservative ideas, sat to the right.

The reason this left-right orientation is nonsense is because to govern means to control. All governments are controlling entities. Some are more controlling than others. If your life is being overly constrained by government, if your rights are being violated, it doesn't matter if it is done by a king, a dictator, or an elected legislature.

The spectrum of political orientation should be based on a percentage of control: 0% (no government at all, true and pure anarchy); 100% (absolute and total control by the govenrment). By that standard, there is no government in the world that is less than 50% controlling of the behavior of its citizens. The more rules and regulations, the more a nation exerts control over its citizens. And, I have to ask you, just how much control by politicians and bureaucrats do you want? How much do you really need?

So, in light of the "truth in advertising" laws, I think all politicians should be ranked by "control percentage." The more they believe in passing laws, rules, and regulations to control the lives of the citizenry, the higher their "control percentage rating" would be. Right now, I put both Republicans and Democrats in the high 70% to low 80% range. (I would rate Nazi Germany at 85-90% and Cuba, today, at 90% plus.) I'd like to see someone who actually wants to abolish many of the obfuscating and entangling lies...I mean laws that now control nearly every aspect of our lives. I could live with a 50% controlling government...but I would like to see one of no more than 30% for my grandchildren.

Not likely to happen though. Too many liars....I mean lawyers out there, and many of them are politicians. They have been trained to think differently than regular honest folk. And the devil (of laws) is in the detail. Remember when President Clinton said "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"? I mean, WOW! That was great. There he was, the President of the United States, right there on television saying that and....and....and nothing. Nobody blinked.

I guess Americans like to be controlled. Probably afraid to do it themselves, like our Founding Fathers thought they should. We just keep on letting politicians pass more and more laws and regulation--and without requiring them to abolish old, out of dates ones. Why in another 50 to 100 years, people will probably need permisison just to flush their toilets. Think that's extreme? What about the seat belt laws? Why can't adults (not children) risk their lives and limbs if they want too? Don't all mentally competent adults own themselves? And if they do, don't they have a right to use their property as they wish, just so long as they don't violate the rights of others? Driving without a seat belt does not make the driver more dangerous to others, just himself or herself if they happen to have an accident. (And I don't want to hear about high insurance rates. Insurance, originally, was to protect yourself, not to pay for others. But that's a whole other article.)

Anyway, the next time you go to the polls to elect someone who wants to be in the spotlight and have power over you, just think about this article. Is the person you are voting for going to increase the government's control over your life, or decrease it? And, if he's going to increase it, is it really necessary, or does it serve one group at the expense of everybody else? That's really how to judge a politician.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Do we really own ourselves?

Back in April of 1996, in Phoenix, Arizona, a rather disturbed young man took a shotgun and blew his penis off. Phoenix police spokesman, Sgt. Mike Torres, was quoted as saying, "It's no crime. You can do whatever you want to your own body." Sgt. Torres was wrong of course. It seems that you can do stupid, violent, bloody things to your body. The "State" doesn't care about that. But don't violate one of the many pseudo-religions sins...I mean laws of the "State", then you will be arrested and incarcerated. What do I mean? If that poor young man had not mutilated himself with the shotgun; if, instead, he had been standing next to, say, Sgt. Torres, and pull out and lit up a marijuana cigarette, Sgt. Torres would have arrested that young man.

Is it just me, or is that absolutely insane? The government will allow a person to mutilate themselves but if they are just trying to enjoy themselves...not violating any one's rights...they can be arrested, convicted, imprisoned, and forever be classified as a felon? (Herein lies the myth of inalienable rights.)

So, you see, you really don't own yourself. The government does. When it can tell you what you can or cannot ingest--your own body, not involving anyone else--then you really are a slave to the government.

I leave you with a quote by Thomas Jefferson that's rather on point. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." (P.S.--Tyranny can be imposed by an elected legislature, as well as a king or emperor.)

Monday, January 01, 2007

Sex, Alcohol, and Killing or being Killed

You must be 21 years old in order to legally buy and consume alcoholic beverages. In some states you must be 21 in order to legally buy sexually explicit material. But you only need to be 18 years old to legally kill people...or to risk being killed by them.

The logic escapes me. A young man or woman can join the military, be trained to kill upon command, then sent overseas to do just that, or to get wounded or killed themselves, at age 18. Conceivably, a young person could join at age 18, and be sent home in a box before their 19th birthday. And yet these same young people do not have full adult rights. They cannot legally buy and consume alcohol or, depending on what state they are from, purchase pornography.

Why? Because sex is more harmful to the minds of these young people than killing or suffering the risk of getting killed, the trauma and stress of warfare? I don't think so. Spending six months to a year in Iraq (or any other war zone) can leave you dead, seriously wounded, or mentally stressed to the point that you can't function right when you return home. It's a fact that returned war veterans have a higher suicide rate than the rest of the population. But in some states they can't buy a magazine or movie that shows two (or more) people giving and receiving pleasure via sex...because it might warp their minds?...because it might make them want to what...kill?

In the case of alcohol--and that ban is age 21 in all states--the situation is equally irrational. Why would society allow citizens they consider too young (mentally) to be able to handle alcohol to be trained to kill and then put a gun in their hands? I mean, if I thought that a person trained to kill humans was too immature to handle a few beers, I sure as hell wouldn't want to let him or her handle firearms. And, if I was that young person, why would I want to risk my life (over 3,000 soldiers kill in Iraq) if I didn't have full adult rights?

If foreign soldiers landed on our shores, every man, woman, and child that could fight would probably get into the fray. I don't have a problem with that. But, if you have been paying attention, then you would know that Iraq was not the direct and immediate threat to the United States that President Bush wanted us to believe. And now, our involvement there has put the United States and its citizens into more danger than if we had not gone into Iraq for the mythical and non-existent "weapons of mass destruction." That is, President Bush's war has made millions of people around the world hate America and Americans more than ever. In case you haven't notice, there doesn't seem to be a lack of suicide bombers.

Still, we are there now. To leave without doing the best we can to stabilize Iraq would be immoral. Of course, that type of immorality doesn't bother the government...just don't let the "underage" soldiers have anything to do with sex and alcohol. Well, to those "underage" soldiers risking their lives every day, I salute you (all of our soldiers, regardless of age)...and I would buy you a beer or two, if I could, as well as any porn magazine or video that you wanted to watch, if such was your nature.