"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/)

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

100 Billion Dollars!

There is a quotation attributed to Senator Everett Dirkson (1896-1969), but it has not been proven that he said it first, or ever said it at all. Still, it's a really good quip: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Well, just how much is a billion dollars. I mean, how can the average person get a grasp on that number. If you could spend 1,000 dollars a day, it would take you one million days to spend one billion dollars. One million days, divided by the number of days per year (365)would be 2,739.7 years.

In 1994, in the New York Times Magazine, Max Frankel wrote an article, "O.K., Call It War," about the so-called war on drugs. In that article he claimed that the total amount of money being spent on the so-called war on drugs(SCWOD), at all levels, federal, state, and local, was 100 billion dollars a year. At a 1,000 dollars a day, it would take you 273,970 years to spend that much money.

If the government is going to take money from us it should not be using it to violate our rights, which the SCWOD does by preventing otherwise peaceful, honest citizens from using recreational drugs other than alcohol and tobacco (which are much, much more harmful overall to individuals and society). Nor should it be using the money to help terrorist organizations, violent drug cartels, and violent street gangs. Without the SCWOD, government regulated and sold drugs would be inexpensive (and a tax source as well) and all those nasty, violent people would have to either go out of business or start robbing banks. And finally, the government should use that money to actually do some good in this nation rather than fight the SCWOD decade after decade with no tangible results whatsoever. (Well, actually, it has been said that without the SCWOD neither crack cocaine nor "ice" would have been created, so I guess the SCWOD has had some results.)

But what could the government do with that 100 billion dollars if not wasting it on the SCWOD? How many people in the United States can't afford health insurance? Forty million? Fifty million? If the government isn't going to stop wasting that money on the SCWOD (not likely), and if it won't give the taxpayers a tax break (even less likely), then why not tell the government to use that money to provide health insurance for those forty to fifty million people. It wouldn't be top-of-the-line health insurance, to be sure, but it could be good basic health care. And the upside for all those government workers who would be out of a job if there was no SCWOD, is that they could be kept on as worker bees in a bigger and better bureaucracy. (I bet Hilary Clinton would like that.)

What do you say gang, should we march on Washington demanding reason and justice and basic health care for the masses and the end of a stupid, wasteful, unending, and rights-violating "war"? Could we do it? Could we make a difference? . . . Nah. I don't think so. It would be too much trouble and probably wouldn't work anyway. So, okay, forget I said anything. I'll just pop open another can of beer. And, hey? Scrubs is on again. To your health . . . gulp, gulp, gulp!

Monday, July 30, 2007

Oh Wonderful Woman (a poem)

Oh wonderful woman,
So winsome,
But so wily;
You wear upon my will
And tear upon my thrill
Of seeing you and me
Flesh to flesh,
Lips locked in love,
Legs twined
Like fingers in a glove;
And fingers, too,
Touching gently
Our passioned places;
Our bodies writhing with
Sensuous embraces.
All that we can give . . .
This moment . . .
We give now.
Time has stopped,
For all intent,
And we are now.

Sunday, July 29, 2007


Here I go beating one of my favorite drums again. It is, of course, about the insane drug war, that never-ending political devise used to increase government employment roles and make America a worse, not better, place in which to live.

Let us compare just the deaths per year of legal versus illegal drugs. According to a Cato Institute paper (Policy Analysis 121), illegal drug use was responsible for about 8,000 deaths per year. Present estimates from "official" sources are between 15,000 and 18,000 per year.

The legal drug alcohol, which is a true narcotic drug, racks up a score of 200,000 according to Policy Analysis 121, and 80,000 to 100,000 from other sources. Approximately one-half of all murders are committed by people who have been drinking according to the government. That would be about 10,000 murders per year, since the approximate number of murders per year is 20,000. The number of alcohol related auto accidents deaths in 2005, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was 16,885, which was 39% of all motor vehicle fatalities.

Tobacco use kills around 430,000 people every year.

If we take the higher number for illegal drug deaths (18,000), the lower number for alcohol-related deaths (80,000), and the accepted number for tobacco-related deaths (430,000) then we can see that illegal drug deaths are only 3.5 percent of the deaths from legal drugs (18,000 divided by 80,000 + 430,000, or 18 divided by 510 = 0.03529 = 3.5%).

In other writings of mine I have quoted a New York Times Magazine article in which the writer estimated that the actual yearly cost of the so-called war on drugs, for all levels of government, local, state, and federal, comes to 100 billion dollars! That's a whole lot of money for a program that doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work . . . and to try and stop 3.5% of the deaths (from willing users) that legal drugs cause. That's rather like having a broken finger and a broken leg with the bone sticking out, and requiring the doctor to ignore the leg and put all his effort into fixing the finger.

And, of course, a great majority of our politicians (including presidents), prosecutors, police, and judges are all imbibers of that wonderfully deadly drug, alcohol. They pass rights violating anti-drug laws, arrest drug law violators, then prosecute them and imprison them (about one million or so of our present jail and prison population are non-violent, illegal drug offenders) while enjoying one of the most harmful and dangerous drugs known to mankind.

I call that HYPOCRISY!

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Questioning Conventional Wisdom

If the "authorities" say so, does it make it true? Well, who are the "authorities" and who died and left the position to them? Is science supposed to be based on unbiased research, studies, and outcomes?

It seems that sunlight is not our enemy. Gosh, go figure! After evolving through the eons in sunlight, much of the time without clothing, and definitely without sunscreen, it might just be possible that sunlight could be beneficial to us.

New studies, as well as old ones, confirm that sunlight will protect you from the most deadly of skin cancers: melanoma. For more on this subject you might want to go to www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/sunlight-melanoma.html

While we're at it, you might want to question the conventional wisdom of avoiding saturated fats. Our ancient, and not so ancient (like our great grandparents) ancestors ate a lot of red meat, butter, lard, whole milk, and so forth, but it has only been since the last half of the 20th century that heart attacks and cancers increased dramatically. That is the time that processed vegetable oils and highly refined carbohydrates were pushed upon the public by multi-billion dollar food corporations. To read the research backing a book titled Eat Fat Lose Fat go to http://eatfatlosefat.com/research.html.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007


I watched some of the utube question and answer session for democratic presidential candidates. It seemed to me that many of the people were confused about certain basic principles. They wanted the government to do more for them, but they wanted to pay less in taxes. Sorry people, you can't have it both ways. If you want to pay less in taxes then you have to become independent and do many things yourself. That's the way the the founding fathers of this nation understood how things should be. The colonists and pioneers of this nation were fiercely independent and wanted the government restrained to certain, well-defined jobs, then to get out of the way of the people so that the people could do for themselves.

Today, it seems, more and more people want the government to do it for them. Well, it can and it is in many, if not most, areas of daily life. But, it will cost you more in taxes. For example: If you don't make an honest attempt at saving for your old age the government will do it for you. It's called social security and you have a social security tax taken out of your paycheck for that purpose. It is now, since the socialist revolution of the 1930's, a mandatory tax. The more that you want the government to do the more money the government must take from you. Remember, the government does not make money--that is, wealth--it takes money, then uses it inefficiently at best.

Sadly, the people of today have all but made the government (The State) into a religion. A political writer of the early part of the Twentieth Century, Albert J. Nock, said in the 1920's that the people now look to the State as the people of the Fifteenth Century looked to the church. He was writing that in the 20's when there were still a high percentage of truly, I-can-do-it-myself, people around. Of course, to do it yourself you need the money in your pocket or bank account, not sent off to the inefficient government to do it for you.

Another political writer, Fredrick Bastiat, a French political economist of the early Nineteenth Century, wrote that everybody wants to be supported by the government; the government, however, is supported by everyone. Everyone wants to crowd in at the feeding trough. When there are, finally, too many at the trough who will be left to bring them the food?

Of course, in the United States we don't have a free enterprise system anymore, and haven't had one for quite some time. There are laws, regulations, licensing requirements, taxes, tariffs, and subsidies enough to strangle any real attempt at free enterprise. Let's face it people, we, here in the United States, have a mixed economy. The biggest part of the mix is socialism--that is, letting the government do it. All the politicians and pundits will vehemently deny this fact, but fact it is. And, as more and more people look to the government to do for them what they should be doing for themselves, this country will become even more socialistic until, finally, it will collapse with too many people on the dole (especially corporate welfare) and to few people supporting them. Because you see folks, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. You either do it yourself, whatever it is, or you pay someone else to do it. And if, by your taxes, you expect the gigantic, slothful, dinosaur that our government has become to do it for you quickly, efficiently, and correctly the first (or second, or third) time, think again. You know full well that the nature of government (workers) is not to do things in an efficient manner.

So, are you an independent person or a dependent person? It's your choice, your time, your taxes. If you want it done and done right, do it yourself or hire a competent person to do it for you. Then tell the government to constrain itself to its true constitutional purpose and get out of the way.