"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, August 28, 2007

On Winning the Lottery and Not Being Extravagant

The Power Ball Lottery was up to 314 million dollars last Saturday . . . and someone won it. At least only one ticket with the correct numbers had been sold, in Indiana.

So what will the government get? About half? I know that gift tax is now 45%, but this isn't a gift. Well let's just assume the the taxes owed will be 50%, for simplicity's sake. So the lucky winner will get 157 million dollars, if they choose to take it as a lump sum. If they choose the pay-out over 25 years . . . well it gets a little complicated here. It's not straightforward, like dividing the amount won (314 million) by 25 (12.56 million) and getting that amount each year, then paying taxes on it. I'm not exactly sure why it isn't done that way, but I bet it's because the winner, somehow, in some way, is getting screwed. But then, it's not a fair world, is it?

What would you do with 157 million dollars? I know what I would do. I would help out family and a few friends. Nothing extravagant, but enough to make their lives comfortable in their old age. The younger ones would have to all get college degrees and work for a while before getting enough from me to make their lives "comfortable." Then I would pick certain charitable organizations and help them out. But I would do my research as to which such charitable organizations actually do the most good for the money.

As for me, I would retire to a few acres in the country. Again, nothing extravagant. I grew up as a simple farm boy. I'm self-educated, but far from stupid. I'm well past the "party-till-you-drop" phase of my life and I've never believed in conspicuous consumption. And I am more concerned about quality of life, not quantity of things. Oh, don't get me wrong. I would travel, some. But mostly I'm a homebody. I would have a vegetable garden, some chickens, a couple of pigs maybe, and a milk cow. And I would set my little farm up to be energy independent, using solar and wind power to run everything . . . and I would have all the latest electronic appliances that I wanted. I would have all that and be financially secure.

Now, I'm sure that some of you out there would think about making some types of investments, to make sure the money lasts. But I turned 60 this year and even if I only got basic savings account interest, about 3.5%/annum, I would still be making 10,990,000 dollars a year. I think I could accomplish all that I wanted on that pittance. I'm also sure that I could get a higher interest rate without having to worry about doing any fancy investing. And that would leave the principle intact. If I ever felt it was necessary, I could always dip into that principle without worry . . . if I wasn't extravagant.

I live in California and we don't have Power Ball, but we do have Mega Millions and Super Lotto. As of this writing, the jackpots were 250 million and 86 million, respectively, with the cash values being 146.2 million and 47.6 million, also respectively. With the smaller jackpot, should I be so lucky to win it, I would probably have to adjust how I use it, but I think I could still accomplish most of what I would like to do for my family, friends, and charities, and myself and still have a sizable amount of money left over. The idea, of course, is not to be extravagant.

So, each Tuesday and Saturday I buy my "one and one" quick pick tickets for Mega Millions and Super Lotto, and hope. After all, there was only one winning ticket sold for the recent 314 million dollar Power Ball Lottery jackpot, and the winning numbers didn't look all that different from many of the ones I get with my quick picks. Who knows? It could happen. All I know is that, eventually, someone wins the jackpot, and you can't win if you don't play. That's kind of like life. You can't win if you don't play . . . and it pays not to be extravagant . . . well, at least not too much for too long.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Better Living Through Chemistry?

Is our modern,chemical/pharmaceutical life style actually causing more harm than good? A chemical used in the kind of clear plastic used in baby bottles, food storage containers, and soda can lining can be leached out of its chemical bond and into our food. The chemical is bisphenol A and it acts like a sex hormone. In laboratory rats and mice, low does of that chemical can cause the following:
--Hyperactivity
--Abnormal sex behavior
--Increased fat deposits
--Disrupted reproductive cycles
--Structural Brain damage

Can low doses of bisphenol A cause the same problems in humans? The plastics industry say no. Of course they do. I mean, we're talking about a lot of money here. But do you want to take a chance with your health, or the health of your children?

DOW Chemical's slogan used to be "Better Living Through Chemistry." With the advent of said better living, beginning in the late 1930's and continuing to the present, we have been inundated with plastics, pesticides, herbicides, highly processed foods (especially white flour, sugar, and vegetable oils). Today we have high rates of cancer, heart attacks, and childhood development problems, all of which were rare 100 years ago. That was when there was no plastic and few unnatural chemicals. It was also a time when our grandparents and great grandparents ate lots of meat and butter, whole, unprocessed milk, and cooked with lard, tallow, and coconut oil, and had few, if any, already prepared, processed foods.

To learn more about the bisphenol problem check out the following websites:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/07/scientists-warn-of-the-dangers-of-a-chemical-found-in-plastic.aspx

http://search.mercola.com/Results.aspx?q=latest%20articles%20bisphenol%20A

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7713/abstract.html This is the original document upon which the other articles are based.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Human-Caused Global Warming Issue Is Far From Over

If you are lazy, or just like to side with sensational, celebrity-linked issues, then of course you probably believe that the warming of the Earth, the melting of the glaciers and polar ice, has been caused by mankind's activities. But, does that mean you will get rid of your SUV, use public transportation, dump the air conditioner and suffer during the sweltering summer, or alter you modern industrialized western behavior in any of the dozens, if not hundreds of ways that you could to reduce your "carbon footprint" on this planet? Of course not. It's one thing to be concerned. It's quite another to be inconvenienced.

But more importantly, would doing so make one bit of difference to global warming? It is not a straightforward, simple issue as Al Gore, and all the celebrities who jumped on his bandwagon, would have you believe. So what about the so-called "consensus" by scientists that the global warming is human caused? Science is based on fact, not opinion. It was the general consensus by all the best educated people, 600 years ago, that the sun revolved around the Earth.

If you are interested in science facts, not fiction. And if you want to try to understand the complexities of the global warming issues, then you should do a little homework yourself and not leave it to the talking heads of television, or popular magazine articles from Newsweek, or others like it, and you should definitely not listen to celebrities. They are mostly interested in their public image. (They are in the business of being liked, you know, so you will go see their movies and make them a whole lot of money . . . a whole lot more than you will ever make in your lifetime.)

I have linked to a couple of sites below on this issue that you should go to and do a bit of reading. It could make a difference in your life . . . or not.

First, there is http://www.sitewave.net/news. You should read Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance, by Mary Ellen Tiffany Gilder and Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts, by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.S. There is much more at that site, but those two articles are good to start with.

Then there is http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm. At the bottom of Mr. Daly's article, Deep Blue Sea, you can click on "Still Waiting for Greenhouse," to see more by Mr. Daly and who he is.

Anyway, it is up to you to keep yourself informed in a logical and rational manner, and not react hysterically to anything that anyone tells you, no matter who he or she might be. To act is to be logical. To react is to be emotional. We didn't get where we are today, technologically, by being reactionary. And anyone who says that we don't need and they don't want all of today's technology can just go live in the wilderness as a stone-age primitive. As for me, I'll keep the air conditioner and the cold beer.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Promiscuity, thy name is man

MILF, of course, stands for a "Mother I'd Like to F....

GILF, then, would be a "Girl I'd Like to F.... Assuming a girl is between the ages of 18 and 21.

GRILF, would be a "Grandmother I'd Like to F.... And in today's world there are a whole lot of sexually attractive grandmothers, especially if you are a man over 50.

But what it comes down to, really, from the average heterosexual man's point of view, is that they are all WILF's, that is "Women I'd Like to F....

So many beautiful, sexy women, so little time . . . and money. And just to clarify things, I like to make love with a woman, as an equal partner in a pleasure giving and receiving activity.

Here's to the crazy ones

I was sorting through some old papers yesterday and came across the following. I don't remember it and don't know where it came from or who wrote it . . . but I like it. I hope you do too.

Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things differently.

They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo.

You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them, disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do it ignore them.

Because they change things.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Nazis and Political Prisoners in America

The United States now incarcerates more prisoners per capita than any nation on Earth. Nearly half of these prisoners are political prisoners. All the people involved in this atrocity, the legislators, the President, governors, judges, prosecutors, police, and prison guards are the new Nazis of America.

You are probably wondering what the hell I am talking about. Nazis? Political prisoners? In America?

Today, America has over two million citizens locked up in our jails and prisons. Nearly one million of those citizens are, as I define it, political prisoners. Their only crime (a sin really) is that they disagreed with the political theories and policies of the government and acted on their own personal moral beliefs, but did not violate the rights of any other person in so doing. It is the violation of rights--murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc.--that has historically been the indicator of real criminal conduct. Everything else that is illegal is, in fact, a sin, a religious concept that has no place in a secular government and a truly free and liberty-loving society. You should be free to worship as you wish, but do not allow the government to punish those who do not belong to your church and who do not have the same moral beliefs as you, if they are not violating the rights of others.

The word Nazi is derived from the form of government known as National Socialism. That type of socialism differs from regular socialism in that it does not own the means of production, but it does regulate all, or nearly all aspects of production. That is what we have in America today. And all those regulations of businesses are the biggest stumbling block to anyone trying to start up a new business. Nazis also regulate, or try to regulate, nearly all aspects of a citizen's daily life, including their personal moral choices that are otherwise honest, peaceful, and consensual.

Now you may be saying that I'm crazy, that you can do all sorts of things without the government's permission. Yes, you can do things like sit in your house and legally drink beer. But you can't sit in your house, not bothering anyone, and legally smoke pot.

The use and abuse of alcohol has been proven in study after study, even government studies, to cause about half of all violent crimes and between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths per year. Pot has never been shown to cause violent behavior and no ones dies from smoking it. If fact, there is substantial evidence to show that it has very good medicinal uses in certain applications.

When this nation was created it was generally accepted that a person could do whatever he wanted to, just so long as he did not violate the rights of others. Today, it has come down to this: You are only free to do whatever the government allows you to do even if you aren't violating the rights of others.

The Nazis have decreed that: you must have a license to drive, to fly, to fish, to hunt, to open a business, etc.; in automobiles you must wear a seat belt; if you ride a motorcyle you must wear a helmet in most states; you must have auto insurance if you drive and now, in Massachusetts, you must buy health insurance. And the way that the Nazis regulate us just goes on and on.

Is the United States the worst country in the world? Of course not. Could it be a whole lot better? You bet it could. And consider this also: All great empires have fallen after they built up huge, expensive, regulatory bureaucracies and the people depended on the government to do all the things that they used to do for themselves, only better and cheaper. The fall of the United States is not a matter of if, rather it is a matter of when.

An indicator of how far we have come down the wrong path is the fact that the United States, with only 5% of the world's population, has 25% of all prisoners in the world. And, as I said above, nearly half of them are political prisoners, because they didn't obey the dictates of the Nazis that now in control of this once great nation.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: That which governs least governs best. I say that to govern means to control. How much control to you need or want from a politician or bureaucrat?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

The Modern Welfare State

In their book Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman explain the origins of the modern welfare state. Surprisingly, the first of such nations was the aristocratic and newly united Germany of the 1880's. Otto von Bismarck, also known as the "Iron Chancellor," proposed and got enacted several social welfare programs; insurance for the workers against accident and sickness, and a pension for old age.

Why is this surprising? Because Otto von Bismarck was part of the German aristocracy. There were basically two classes of people in Germany then: the aristocrats and everyone else. However, it seems that Chancellor Bismarck implemented these programs more for political reasons than for any true concern for the working class. The Social Democrat party was just coming into being and presented a threat to the aristocratic power base.

The other surprising thing about Germany becoming the first modern welfare state is that a nation that believed in right of rule and power due to accident of birth--kings and princes and dukes and earls and that sort of thing--would be the first to introduce the basic planks of socialist political groups. But, when you consider that both the aristocracy and the socialists believed that they knew better than the average person what is best for them and everyone else, and what is in the public interest and how to get it done, then it's no surprise at all. Both groups want a strong central government and they believe that the people have to be told what to do, albeit, with their tacit consent. Therefore, both the aristocrats and the socialists end up with a paternalistic policy, promising the people that if only they are allowed to take power, or remain in power, will the people be safe and secure.

Of course, aristocracy was almost ended as a real power at that time. The First World War ended it completely except, perhaps in a few marginalized nations around the globe. But the welfare state stayed, and has only gotten bigger every since. It's gotten bigger, but not better. Otherwise, the Social Security Administration wouldn't be facing a major financial crisis, public housing would be a renter's paradise, and Canadians facing serious and immediate medical needs wouldn't be coming to the United States to get help. Further, most, if not all European nations, which are much more socialist than the United States, are having to scale back their welfare-state programs.

The modern welfare state is here to stay, I'm afraid. I don't see it being dismantled any time soon. But, if the working person just would take more interest in what really works and what doesn't, then the welfare state could be kept in check. We are losing freedoms every day to the unending regulation mills that the government bureaucracies are. There is also this to consider: As more and more people get on the government gravy train--either as an employee or a person or company receiving a subsidy or hand out--then there will be fewer people actually producing the wealth that supports the government. As Frederick Bastiat, a French political economist of the 1840's said: Everyone wants to exist at the expense of the government. They forget, however, that the government exists at the expense of everyone.

Germany was the founder of the modern welfare state. That disease was extremely contagious and infected all nations in the world. If the government is going to take care of me from "cradle to grave," then the government will have to have control over me in all that I do, in my work and in my recreation, in my food and drink, and more. And I will have to work long and hard to pay the taxes that will be due to support the ever bigger bureaucracies that will always be created and that will always grow ever bigger. Could that be one of the reasons, maybe the main reason, why it takes a working couple to adequately support a family today, but in my parents time, when I was growing up, only my father had to work to feed us, house us, and clothe us? Could that also be a reason why 44 to 45 million Americans can't afford proper health insurance, if they can afford it at all?

Monday, August 20, 2007

Sex With Animals Is Both Natural and Your Right.

"Ethologists such as Desmond Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant masturbation and homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual couples, homosexual raising of the young, and cross-species sexual advances." From the Wikipedia article on zoophilia. Section: Animal studies perspective. (Emphasis added.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/zoophilia

In Masters and Johnson’s book, Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving (1982), they define “bestiality” as “[e]ngaging in sexual contact with animals…[but] when the act or fantasy of sexual activity with animals is a repeatedly preferred or exclusive means of obtaining sexual excitement it is called zoophilia.” (Page 385.) Whether you call it zoophilia or bestiality, it is having sex with animals and it has been reviled and prohibited from very ancient, historical times. However, as we can see from the quote above, from Wikipedia, even animals are not immune to sexual desire or, at the very least, making “sexual advances” to other species. So, this is not just an abnormal human condition. It seems to be a natural condition of some individuals in some species, of which the human species happens to be one.

That is not surprising, considering our big brain advantage and our ability to think and ponder and wonder about things. Animal sex would just naturally occur as a possibility to any hormonally raging young human male who is around animals, especially if human females were not available for any reason. There is a prehistoric pictograph from Northern Italy depicting what is obviously a man in the process of sexually penetrating a burro. And, of course, human women, especially the young ones, can be quite curious and have strong libidos too. This behavior is not something that just popped up recently in human history.

Reay Tannahill, in her book Sex in History (1982) at page 71, states that in the ancient nomadic, pastoral times, before people had settled down into cities, sex with domesticated animals was not uncommon. However, either because after settling into cities the people saw such practices as being from a bad and less enlightened time, or because a person having sex with an animal (man or woman) was not using his or her sexual energies for procreation, this practice diminished. In a time before overpopulation, when child mortality rates were high, as well as deaths from all causes, sex with animals was generally banned. Both the Hittites, whose empire was huge and predated the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan, and the Israelites, themselves, imposed a death penalty for having sex with animals. But it is well documented, where there is a sufficient amount of historical records, that sex with animals occurred in possibly all cultures, historically, around the world. Many times it was incorporated into religious ceremonies.

So,if you want to have sex with an animal, you're not alone. There are tens of thousands of people who do so every year. And there is historical precedence. Just don’t injure it and don’t let it injure you. For instance, for those of you who might be curious, when a stallion is close to ejaculation his glans (the head of his penis) “flares”, or "bells" and enlarges to a size bigger than a large man's fist. Unless a woman has an extra large vagina or is used to being “fisted” by such a man, she just might experience more than a little bit of pain due to internal vaginal injury. Get expert instructions (available on the internet). Treat the animal with kindness, respect, and dignity. Sex is supposed to be about mutual pleasure (yes it is, all of you perverse sickos), whether human-to-human or human-to-animal. And you might want to find out if you can catch something nasty while you’re at it. (Also available on the internet.)

Other than that, it’s your life. Your body and your mind belong to you. They are your property. They don’t belong to the government or to any church. You can follow church dogma. That’s your choice. But the church cannot arrest you, try you, convict you, fine you, or imprison you…and the government has no legitimate business for doing so under the principle of inalienable rights when it comes to non-violent, non-coerced, consensual adult sexual behavior. (And remember, domesticated animals are property. You can own them and use them. But do not use them cruelly. That would be perverse.) Use your body and your mind as you will, just so long as you don't violate the rights of others or, as in this case, intentionally or negligently cause pain and suffering to an animal. And have fun. One of the main purposes of life, if not the main purpose, is to enjoy your life as much as you can.

Now, for the curious ones reading this: No, I have never had sex with an animal, nor do I particularly want to. I have fantasized about certain women that I know or have known having sex with dogs and horses. But that is pure fantasy and I have never mentioned it to them, nor would I ever, unless they, by some obvious sign or suggestion, brought up the subject first. Of course, if there is any woman out there who has a similar fantasy, or who is a "zoo" and would like to share that with me, I would be glad to do so. Sharing such fantasies with you would be quite arousing to me, you also, hopefully. And watching or helping you to have sex with a dog or horse would be even more arousing to me.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Drinking age and military service

I was watching the "talking heads" on TV again. This time the subject was about men or women in the military who are under the age of 21 and should they be allowed to drink alcohol legally. (Well, actually, it was about lowering the age to 18, but the military component was part of the discussion.)

There was a young man talking head who said no; that since the federal government forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21, 25 thousand lives a year are being saved. I don't know how that fact was arrived at. I'm sure a good statistician can make numbers do what he or she wants them too. Although, I'm not saying the 25 thousand lives a year statement isn't true.

There was an older talking head who believed, if I remember right, that since an 18-year-old in the military can be trained to kill, then sent off to kill or be killed, that that person should have the full adult right to drink. That's how I feel about it.

But then I came up with these compromises, assuming the 25 thousand lives a year saved argument. First, no one should be allowed to join the military until they are 21. (Nor should they be allowed to vote. I mean, if we can't trust them with booze, why would we want to trust them with electing politicians to office?) Second, if by having the drinking age at 21 saves so many lives, how many more could be saved by raising it to, say, 30, or even better, 40. Or, hey, how about banning alcohol altogether for the violence- and accident-causing, addictive and health-destroying narcotic drug that it is? Third, why not allow all military personnel who are under the age of 21 to drink, but only at the NCO club on their military post or base? Fourth, and final, why not allow the drinking age to be 18 again, but do not allow anyone to have a drivers license until they are 21, as it seems to me that most of those 25 thousand lives that were being wasted when the drinking age was 18, was because of wasted teen drivers.

Is there a perfect answer to this question? As a wise teacher once told me, "it's not a perfect world." I like my first suggestion best. But when it comes down to it, in the real world, if a person can be sent to a foreign country and give up his life to protect us here at home, it seems to me that that person should be afforded full adult rights.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Insurance Companies: Scum-Sucking Bottom Feeders; and Socialist Health Care in Massachusetts

It is well known that health care in America, supposedly the richest country in the world, is not all it could be. I am for true free markets and free choices, not the mixed bag of interfering government (socialist) programs that now exist in the United States. Many people have complained about welfare to the poor, but have said little to nothing about the much more expensive welfare to corporations. Any time the government gives your tax dollars to anyone or anything, individual or corporation, that is welfare. I'm am totally against it. That sort of government interference mucks up a free market so that, in fact, there is no free market.

But on to insurance, especially health insurance. First of all, the original intent of insurance was for a person to protect himself or herself against possible losses. If automobile insurance was allowed to run that way today, then all you would have to do is insure yourself against the possibility of accidents, whether you caused them or someone else did. That way, you would be covered for any harm caused to you by another, or any harm you might cause to yourself by your own actions. If you did not have insurance, but I did, and we had an accident, no matter whose fault, you would be S.O.L. but I would be "financially" protected. Of course, the government has interfered and won't allow the simple purpose of insurance to exist, so we have to buy insurance to cover the harm we might cause to others. Strange, I thought that was what the courts were for. (Pure financial protection for self would probably be much less expensive and, therefore, within the reach of every automobile owner.)

When it comes to health insurance, with 44 or 45 million people in the United States who can't afford it, the State of Massachusetts has taken a giant step towards complete socialism--which, as we can see in Russia and China, really doesn't work. (No Mildred, those countries weren't communist. Communism is a myth. It doesn't work in practise even more than socialism.) So, in Massachusetts you are now mandated by law to buy health insurance. The reasoning is that there were 550,000 people who were being treated medically purely at the taxpayers' expense. (But if taxes weren't so high, maybe those people could have afforded insurance. Remember, the more you have the government do for you, the more it costs. Because the government doesn't make money, it takes money . . . and generally uses it very inefficiently.)

I'm not against health insurance per se. Of course not. Medicine and medical procedures have become so complicated and expensive that the average person cannot afford to pay for them--especially when you consider that doctors and hospitals take advantage of their special positions in the community. I mean, if you need medical help, where else are you going to go? I am also not very fond of insurance companies. I call them "scum-sucking bottom feeders". They want to take your monthly premium, but they sure as hell don't want to pay out if you need to use the insurance. And they will go to all sorts of tricks to keep from paying your medical bills. (See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/20186938/)

So what can be done about the need for health insurance. Well, as long as the government is going to take our tax dollars, then they should be put to good use, not wasted, like in the ludicrous and so-called "war on drugs." (Some sources claim that up to 100 billion dollars a year are being spent on the WOD by local, state, and federal agencies.) That money could be used to set up a voluntary and inexpensive insurance program for those who can't afford one or for those whose employers don't provide an adequate one. And, remember, the more people signed on to a group policy the cheaper the insurance premiums. The scum-sucking bottom feeders play the odds. (And, truth be told, all companies need to make a profit in order to stay in business . . . but excessive profits strains ones credulity.)

So, with at least 44 million possible customers on one group policy, we should be able to get pretty low monthly rates. Also, it should be adjusted to income levels. Those at poverty level or below, only paying 10% of the monthly premium. Those above poverty level paying anywhere from 15% to 100%, or having the option to contract with a privately owned insurance company. Since the government is already taking the tax dollars for the WOD, they could simply end that stupid mess (remember, 90 million drinkers and 45 million smokers cause a whole lot more health problems, violence and crime that the 20 million drug users--of which about 15 million are pot smokers) and switch the 100 billion dollars over to the Voluntary National Health Insurance Corporation . . . a semi-private insurance company.

Yes, yes, I know. I'm not supposed to like socialism in any form, and by proposing the VNHI Corporation, I am proposing adding to our government's socialist agenda. At the same time, however, I am proposing to end a pernicious program that actually does much more harm than good, both to individuals and society. And, as long as the mind-set of Americans is such that they think the government, not themselves, will save them, then I would rather the money from taxes be used for a program that has the potential to actually do some good for the people who need it most.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Tropical Paradise......Yeck!

Almost all the ads I see on TV--and quite a few on internet--showing people on vacation, always show them in some tropical paradise. In the movies, when someone makes a big score--as in ripping someone off for a lot of money--they always head for some tropical paradise. Why? What is it about the average white person that makes them think that living in the tropics is so great? (Try living there without air conditioning, or screens on your windows, or without bottled water, like the natives do.)

First of all, white folks aren't supposed to get too much exposure to the sun. We don't have the melanin in our skin for it to be healthy for us. After all, our ancestors developed white skin (which is just another way of saying "lack of melanin") because they lived in Northern Europe, England, Scotland, Ireland, or Scandinavia where a sunny day was rare and appreciated and we didn't need the melanin to get in the way of our skin making the vitamin D necessary for a whole bunch of necessary metabolic functions. Now, tourists flock to sunny Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, Belize, and various other "tropical paradises" to get severely sunburned or to slather themselves with sunscreens by the pint in order to enjoy all that sun.

Well, that's just a genetic reason to not like tropical paradises. I, personally, don't like the heat and humidity, nor all the bugs and creepy-crawly things that come with it. I've spent a fair amount of time in Puerto Vallarta. I have a friend in Mexico. She's a widow with a big house in Guadalajara and a condo in Puerto Vallarta. We've spend a lot of time together in P.V. She loves it. Soon, she says, she will sell the house and move to P.V. permanently. And, won't I come along with her. (She really likes me.)

I've tried to explain to her that along about the end of September, no later than the second week of October, I like a good frost. And, for Christmas, I like a bit of snow. In fact, I like a lot of snow. Not 10 to 12 feet of it, but 2 to 3 feet is fine. And, getting snowed in once in a while is okay too. I prefer chilly weather in the Spring and Fall and cold in the Winter. Summers, to be perfect, shouldn't be more than 90 to 95, with low humidity. She doesn't even appear to hear me. She can't imagine anyone in the world who wouldn't love P.V. once they have been there. So, she ignores, or downplays what I tell her.

There is another difference too. I am a country boy, born and raised in farm country in Southern Wisconsin. I really don't like big cities. (Anything over 25,000 people is getting too big for me to be comfortable.) I prefer living out in the country away from others, preferably in highlands of the arid West.

My Mexican lady friend wants me to move to Mexico permanently and to marry her. I will have to let her down gently. The only way I can see that happening is if we live in her tropical paradise of P.V. for 6 months a year, then in my temperate paradise of, oh I don't know, South Central Colorado--not too high an elevation but with grand views of a few 12 to 14 thousand foot, snow-capped peaks--for the other six months.

Of course, that probably wouldn't work. While in P.V. I would just be marking time until I could get back to what I consider--as so many foolish people say--"God's country." As if God didn't make it all. And my lady friend would be doing the same the other six months of the year. So, I guess I will have to forget about her, and she me. She can have her tropical paradise. Everyone who can afford to live there is welcome to it. I definitely prefer pines to palms. If I never see another native, naturally growing palm tree, it will be fine by me. Tropical paradise....yeck!

Friday, August 10, 2007

Sexual Disunion

Recently, six democratic Presidential candidates were asked about homosexual marriage. None of them endorsed such a proposal. They were able to agree that "civil unions" would be okay. But seriously folks, what's a marriage but a civil union, since you have to get permission, not from the church, but from the civil government, eh?

I recently wrote a blog about sex: Why Must Sex Be Dirty?, August 1, 2007. This inability of politicians, both Democrat and Republican to squarely face the fact that homosexuals are, have been, and always will be with us, as a natural phenomenon, can be traced back to the fact that our society's moral view of sex was formed by some ancient men who came from a culture and religion that put heavy emphasis on reproduction; that homosexual behavior was non reproductive and therefore wrong. It also doesn't help that those same early "church" leaders thought that to enjoy physical pleasure for itself was, in and of itself, sinful. That would include,of course, sex, even between a man and a woman. What sorry, sick people those men were. (Well, what the hell, they couldn't help it. They didn't even know that germs existed, let alone genes, chromosomes, and DNA.) Still, today we have to live with the centuries and centuries of personal moral beliefs based on a lack of science, logic, and acceptance of differences that normally occur in large population groups.

Don't the politicians today realized that homosexuality has been documented in animal species? How could it not be in the human species, given all the possible combinations and permutations of how brains can develop?

In any case, the issue was marriage of homosexuals. A rather small issue when you consider the more serious, life-and-death things that are going on in the world today. As I see it, marriage was instituted for two basic purposes: 1) to tell the tribe, and neighbors, that this particular woman now belonged to this particular man . . . woman as legal property; and 2) to tell the tribe and neighbors that the married couple were to be responsible for any children born from their--ugh!--disgusting sexual congresses. (I hope that all you so-called Christians out there realize that no where in the Bible does it limit the number of wives a man could have. It only limited him to having sex with a woman who was his wife . . . which, more or less, meant any concubines and slaves he might own too. How many legal sexual partners could a man have. It all depended on how rich he was and how many he wanted and could afford.)

In today's world, women are no longer property, at least not in the more socially advanced nations. But children should still be the primary responsibility and concern of those who produce them, whether they are married or not. So what's the big deal about homosexuals getting married? If it's not about owning the "wife" or being responsible for children produced in wedlock, to be archaic in my language, then it must be about have survivors' benefits from Social Security and insurance policies. It can't be about a mere scrap of paper that says that John Doe and Joe Doakes are now "man and man" (??), or that Jane Doe and Janet Doakes are now "woman and woman" (??).

Because if that's what it's all about, why hell I can make up a really good "Marriage Certificate" on my computer, and I'll even preside over a really good marriage ceremony for them too. Cheap! It won't be "legal" as in recorded in the County Recorder's Office, but, as it says in the Bible, a man and a woman who claim to be married, especially in front of their family and friends, are married. Notwithstanding the anti-homosexual bigotry of the Bible, I don't see why that wouldn't be good enough for John and Joe, or Jane and Janet, eh? I mean if it were just a matter of love, and not a matter of money.

So back to the politicians. If any one of them had a set of balls or, as in the case of Hilary Clinton, ovaries, they would clearly state that they were for homosexual marriages--because it really doesn't matter and it really won't disrupt heterosexual marriage, coupling, and child bearing--and then cite the studies that strongly suggest that homosexuality is a natural condition, not a choice one makes suddenly one day. But, of course, they can't do that. They are politicians. Which means that they will say what they think the majority want them to say so that they can get elected, whether they believe it or not. And that's why I have always said: Beware of anyone who aspired to political office. They should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Take A Pill!

"Take a pill" was a great line by one of my favorite characters on a show, oh, maybe 20 years ago, called "Fridays". It ran in competition to "Saturday Night Live." Didn't make it though. SNL is still with us. Fridays isn't.

In any case the character was a pharmacist with long, wild, stand up hair. He would quite often pop up from behind the counter. And his advice to anyone with any problem was to "take a pill." That's what the mega-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry tells us every day, several times a day. Take a pill. We have a pill for everything. You know, the old Dow Chemical slogan: Better living through chemistry. Well that's all a lie.

Yes, sometimes in some instances modern chemical medicine is the right application of treatment. But do we all need so many medications in our lives? What did our grandparents, or better yet, our great-grandparents do without all the pills? Actually, they did a whole lot better than we are doing.

It is not common knowledge, but our great-grandparents had much lower rates of cancer and heart attacks than we do today. There wasn't all that much ADA or autism, among other more modern ailments either. What it comes down to is two basic areas of our modern life: food and chemicals.

First chemicals. We are surrounded by all sorts of chemicals today: household chemicals, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals; the residues from supposedly non-reactive plastics in which we get and store our food, food additives and preservatives, and the pills that so many of us are taking every day.

Then there is the food difference between us and our ancestors. They ate more butter, cheese, meat, high saturated fats than we do today by far. They also suffered fewer heart attacks and cancer. The main death-causing problems in the bad old days were threefold: 1) unsanitary conditions, 2) insufficient food (among the poor), and 3) death from childhood diseases. If a person, then, got sufficient food and didn't die from any major disease or accident, then they could live a long and healthy life, well into their 80's or 90's.

Today, due to eating a diet low in saturated fat, high in sugar, and high in overly processed food (mainly white flour), and high in processed vegetable oils, we have an epidemic of cancer and heart attacks, among other health problems.

Statins, a popular drug prescribed to lower cholesterol, has been indicated in higher rates of cancer and Parkinson's disease . . . people having "extra-low cholesterol levels." (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, July 31, 2007; 50: 409-418.) Statin drugs may also be related to liver and muscle damage. Today, cholesterol is considered to be the devil itself, but if that is true, why weren't our great-grandparents dying from heart attacks at higher rates than we do today? (For more on the benefits of cholesterol--yes, that's right, the benefits--go to
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#chol.

Think about all the drugs that are hyped to us on TV . . . and all the really negative possible side effects. No thank you. I will eat in a traditionally healthy way, one that my ancestors have eaten for thousands of years: butter, cheese, whole milk, red meat and whole grains. You can take a pill . . . if you want.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The Smell of Death Is All Around Us, So Learn to Love Being Alive

Death is such a depressing subject . . . to those of us who like living. But it is really all around us. Death walks beside us every moment of every day. You never know when it will get you.

For example, years ago I was riding with my uncle and his family. We were going to a hot springs spa way up in the Rockies, in Colorado. We heard on the radio that a man who had pulled over to the shoulder of the road because of a flat tire--in the same canyon we were driving through--had been killed by a falling rock. It came down off a high cliff and hit him in the head. Death was instant.

I got to thinking then. How long had that rock been up there, almost on the point of falling; just two or three more grains of sand to shift enough so it could? How did it happen that the man stopped his car, got out, and stood in exactly the right spot, on the right day, and the right time in order for that rock to finally fall and kill him. I mean, a minute sooner, a minute later, stopping the car in a different spot by only one foot, would have saved that man's life. Maybe it was just coincidence that the man was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe it was meant to be. I'm not religious, but coincidence in this case seems pretty far fetched.

So, death is all around us, but we pretty much ignore it unless it comes close to us personally, or takes one of our loved ones or acquaintances. How can death take us, let me count the ways: Car accidents, plane accidents, boat accidents, and falls; murders, diseases, and poisoning among all; tsunamis and earthquakes, floods and volcanoes, and then what more?; terrorist attacks, asteroid strikes, and of course there's always war.

This does not depress me. This is just life. Life is not fair and there are no guarantees that we will live a long life. Most of us, however, myself included, can live happy lives, for the time that we are alive. Focus on the "now." Every breath is precious . . . and it could be your last. Be mindful of all that you do. Do not take for granted anything. Take time to smell the roses, as they say. Enjoy each day as if it might be your last. Treat other people as you want to be treated. You may never see them alive again, or they you. That does not mean to party hardy and spend all your money, because this might not be your last day and you will get to enjoy many, many more of them.

I'm not suggesting that you should "be happy, don't worry," although it is something close to that. Worrying doesn't change anything only action or time will. Yes, we must be concerned about certain day-to-day things, or the future and how we will meet it. But still, whether you are working hard physically, or mentally, there should be that little part of your mind that is noticing the "incredible beauty of existence."

Now, having said all that, I must also say that there are people out there who are, for one reason or another, "damaged goods", so to speak. Usually, they had bad childhoods. And I'm not talking about not getting a pony for Christmas. I'm talking about those who were verbally, physically, sexually, emotionally abused. Their brain chemistry develops in such a way that they have a truly hard time enjoying life like I am urging. They have a hard time accepting and enjoying themselves because of what was done to them by evil parents, guardians, or circumstances beyond their control. And then there are those who, again, for one reason or another, were born with brain chemistry imbalances and will never be able to be truly happy. Although they may find a semblance of it through proper medication. I feel very sorry for those "damaged" people. There usually is so little that can be done. I urge them to seek professional help. Some of those who were physically and emotionally traumatized in early childhood can be helped to understand that they were not the problem and that they are good because they exist. If they can reach that point, then they will have a chance to find happiness in themselves, and then in the world around them.

I lost a son to leukemia when he was 18. My oldest sister died of breast cancer three years ago. My best friend died of liver cancer four years ago (she was not a drinker). My mother died of old age at age 81, but my father died of a heart attack at age 72. I have a brother who has inoperable prostate cancer and has been given five years to live, if that (but who knows what the future will bring?). My youngest sister has just had a partial mastectomy. The cancer was caught early and the prognosis is good. But who knows? I seem to be the healthiest one in my family, but again, who knows? This list of death and disease is, perhaps, worse than some people have experienced, but not nearly so bad as others.

My personal burden of sadness touches me deeply from time-to-time as I reflect on each and every one that I have known and loved and who has died. But I am a survivor and life, amidst death, goes on. I go on and I refuse to give in to perpetual sadness and gloom. I still find, every morning, and many times throughout the day, the incredible beauty of existence. I sincerely hope that you can too.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Property Rights and Abortion

The right to own property was a fundamental building block in the creation of this nation. The founders knew that there could be no true freedom if one was not allowed to own property and to be free to use or dispose of that property at will. As long as one's use or disposal of said property does not violate the equal rights of others, then one should be free to act as one desires.

The most basic property that one can own is the property of his or her own body. We fought a great and bloody civil war nearly 150 years ago. While the main reason for that war was whether or not states had the right to secede from the Union, the driving premise for the secession attempt was the issue of slavery: the ownership of one person by another.

That issue was soundly and rightfully defeated. We cannot have a free nation and a moral society if some people have the right to own other people. Therefore, we, each and every one of us, young and old alike, own the property of our bodies . . . at least in legal theory. (The laws creating the so-called war on drugs prove differently.)

In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court said that a woman had the right to control her body when it came to reproductive strategies. Does that mean that a pregnant woman owns the developing fetus inside her womb?

Parents do not own their children as though they were pieces of property. The child has as much property right in himself or herself as do the parents in themselves. But the child does not have full adult rights by any means. A newborn is helpless. A child is somewhat helpless and ignorant. An adolescent is ignorant and inexperienced. The parents, because their actions brought the child into existence, are the guardians and teachers of a future citizen. It is the civic duty of the parents (or assigned guardians, as may be necessary) to educate and civilize the child to be an honest, peaceful, self-responsible, and self-supporting member of society. The parent cannot sell the child, or beat it like a dog, or otherwise treat it as personal property to be used, abused, or disposed of at will.

At what point does an unprotected fetus--a potential human being from conception through early fetal stage, and usually viable after six months in the womb--at what point does that potential human life become fully protected human life? It cannot be a lump of tissue until the moment of birth, then, magically, it is a human being at which point it would be murder to kill it.

For those who claim to be Christians, among others, it would seem that it must be the moment of conception that fully protected human life comes into existence. But I am not a Christian. I am not hindered by the belief in a Creator, a magical Spirit, or of Heaven and Hell. I cannot believe that two cells, the egg and the sperm, at the moment of impregnation, become fully protected human life.

Still, I am a rational person. I know that a society worth living in must be based on more than what we merely have the ability to do. I know that at some time, well before birth, we are no longer talking about a bit of human protoplasm, and that to kill the fetus is murder indeed.

We now need to switch the focus from a woman's right to control her body, with which I agree to a point, and shine the light of critical thinking on the rights of a potential human being. The woman, at some point, sooner or later, no longer owns the property of the developing human within her. She is merely its guardian. Just because we have the power to kill in order to make our lives easier does not, in a society that supposedly believes in the sanctity of human life, make the use of that power against the most helpless and innocent among us either moral or legitimate.

To err, if it is an error, on the side of caution, we would have to side with the Christians and other "pro-lifers". The developing life is technically an embryo up to eight weeks after fertilization, then it is consider a fetus. By that time it has facial features, arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, toes, a brain, and all other necessary organs. It looks human, but like an unfinished human. It is not viable at this point. Above I said that six months is the viability point. However, at about five months, or about 500 grams, with expert modern medical care, a fetus can sometimes survive outside the womb. Generally, however, say in more primitive settings than modern America, a five month old fetus and most six month old ones would die outside of the protecting body of the woman.

If you are one who believes that a woman has a right to get an abortion, for any reason, then, again, to err on the side of caution, you should have it no later than the eighth week of pregnancy. (Roe v. Wade set the limit at viability, six to seven months.) After that you are definitely moving into a hazardous grey zone regarding the rights of an unborn human being.

Well, that's just my opinion. Of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's really pretty simple for most women to keep from getting pregnant, even teenagers, if they would just admit that they are going to have sex and enjoy it, but take all the precaution necessary to not get pregnant. That way, there is no moral issue to deal with. But that would be logical and most people shun logic in the face of emotions. And that's why my URL is "logic-v-emotion".

Friday, August 03, 2007

Panama versus Pakistan -- Picking on the Little Guy

Back in December of 1989, King . . . er, I mean President George Bush the First, ordered the invasion of Panama. Several reasons were given. Protecting the lives of the 35,000 U.S. citizens living there at the time was one of them. According to Bush I, Panama had declared a war on the U.S. Others say, however, that the Panamanian Legislature declared that there was a state of war between the U.S. and Panama, evidenced by how the U.S. was treating that nation. The difference is critical. Did the Panamanians think that the U.S. was the aggressor, or did the U.S. think that Panama was poised to attack America? I mean, seriously, did the Panamanians think that if they started killing American citizens the U.S. wouldn't come down on them like a couple of thousand tons of bricks?

Another reason was to defend democracy and human rights, because the last election that then leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega (still a federal prisoner in the U.S.) won was supposedly rigged and unfair. Well gosh. How many unfair elections in how many nations around the world have there been in the last 50 years? Why wasn't that a reason for the U.S. to invade? Or, what about the obviously unfair elections, by our standards, in the former Soviet Union and China? (Or what about the human rights violations in those nations for all these years?)

A third reason given was to combat drug trafficking. What was coming through Panama at that time was some pot and a whole lot of cocaine. Of course, we didn't invade Columbia or Mexico or any other nation in which cocaine or marijuana is grown, processed, or shipped through. Besides, at that time, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) estimated five million regular cocaine users and about twenty-five million regular marijuana users. Was the government afraid of the pot-heads? Were five million crack-heads a serious threat to national stability?

Finally, the last reason given for the invasion was to protect the neutrality of the Panama Canal. Okay, they could have landed the troops in the Canal Zone and then sent out sorties to round up U.S. citizens not living there to bring them in for protection without invading and killing thousands of Panamanians citizens. (I think the official U.S. figure is between 200 and 300 Panamanian citizens killed. Others, reliable sources, put the figure at between 3,000 and 4,000. Big difference, right? Plus 15,000 or more who had their homes destroyed.)

Okay. My point here is that under a rational reading of the facts, Panama was not a national security threat to the U.S. That is, it did not present a clear and present danger to our nation, which should be the only reason why we would invade a sovereign nation. But what about Pakistan?

I was watching some talking heads the other day commenting on a statement by one or more of the Democratic Presidential candidates about the need to invade Pakistan in order to root out a major Al-Qaeda stronghold and possibly capture the illusive Osama bin Laden. The talking heads were very concerned about the U.S. invading a "sovereign" nation. . . . Excuse me!? We did it in Panama, for a whole lot less reason. No problem. I mean, Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, does anyone remember the attack by those fanatics on our soil on September 9th of 2001? I would say that bin Laden and his crew absolutely do present a clear and present danger to the security of this nation. If they are hiding in Pakistan and the Pakistani government can't or won't do what is necessary to capture or kill them and anyone who is protecting them, then, gosh fellas, we have to do it ourselves, right?

Oops! I forgot. There is just one small problem here. Panama was a little guy; not capable of doing any real harm to the U.S. And no other nation in the world was willing to declare war on the U.S. for it's act of aggression on Panama on trumped up charges. Pakistan is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

First, they have nuclear capability. Second, we could set off a revolution leaving the bad guys in charge of those nukes. Third, if the bad guys get the nukes, they might want to use them against their other hated enemy, India. India has nukes too, and just might want to do a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan under the right conditions. Hmmmm? This could get messy, as in the beginning of World War III.

So, what should we do? We can't just leave the Al-Qaeda boys alone until they hit us again. I say we do to Pakistan what we did to Iraq. Invade big time. Take out the legitimate government (sorry Mr. Musharraf, nothing personal you know. And we'll give you back your country when we finish here, okay?). At the same time, strike heavily where we think bin Laden and his group are holed up. A big pincher movement from south to north, and kill all the fanatic anti-American Muslims that get in the way. (Don't worry, they will all be going to Muslim heaven to the awaiting virgins.)

Oops! One more problem, besides Russia and China getting really, really pissed off, where are we going to get the troops? Hmmmm? Meanwhile, back in Iraq: "Okay, that's it. We're done here. Have a nice day. We've got another job to do now."

Well, I think you will have to admit that it is easy for the U.S. to beat up on the little guy, the ones with almost no power and no friends to help them out. But, seriously, something drastic has to be done in Pakistan, one way or the other, before it is too late.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Why Must Sex Be Dirty?

Ever since I was a teenager, with raging hormones and erections at inconvenient times, I have been fighting against the illogical mind-set that always depicts sex as dirty, filthy, nasty, or obscene; and women who like sex as whores, sluts, cunts, pussies, or bitches. (I mean, come on guys, none of us would be here if mom didn't have sex, right? Is she a whore, slut, cunt, pussy, or bitch? Besides, if all women believed that virtue lay only with having sex for babies, where would we be guys? . . . gay or jerking off a lot more than we do now, right?)

I blame this negative attitude about sex on religion, especially the Christian religion. At some point in the past the religious leaders decided that the sex act was bad but necessary, if they wanted more church members. You--both men and women--weren't supposed to enjoy sex, and you were only supposed to do it to have children. Any other reason to have sex was just plain evil sinning. And the people bought it! Hell, they're still buying it today. This perversion of a wonderful and natural behavior has led to some people not being able to fully enjoy sex without some form of their perverse beliefs involved, such as bondage (I can't help what's happening to me), spanking or whipping (punishment for enjoying sex), or being called a whore, or slut (since sex is dirty, men, usually, need to call their sex partners degrading names, but sometimes women need it too).

Look, folks, humans are by nature very sexy animals. Human males have the largest penis size for body weight of any mammal, and almost all other animals. Human females don't have a "season." The right man, with the right approach, can have sex with a particular women at almost anytime of the day, night, week, month, or year. Horses have a reputation as being very virile. But a good stud can only have sex with one or two mares a day for maybe a month, then he will need a long break, as in weeks or months, before doing it again. When I was in my thirties, I lived with a very fine lady that I loved very much. The feeling was reciprocal. We had sex every day, sometimes more than once a day, for at least a year before we slowed down . . . slowed down, not stopped. And I am sure there are men out there who could have fucked circles around me, so to speak.

My point is this: Either by evolution or by design, if you are religious, humans were made to have sex and have it a lot and to enjoy it immensely. Consider that many women can enjoy multiple orgasms if they allow themselves to let go. So why would we not want to celebrate sex as the extremely good thing it can be, from an evolutionary point of view? Or why would we not do the same if God, a god, somebody's God, made humans such sexual, sensual beings? I mean, this begs the question: What kind of perverse being would make sex such an enjoyable behavior, then tell us that the only time it is appropriate is when it is just one man and one woman, with the man on top, not to be enjoyed, and only to have babies!

If we take the Christian's Bible for an example, consider the following. Not withstanding some written rules in the Bible about some sexual behavior--which may have been the opinions of the writer only--Adam and Eve and their children had to have had sex together in order to produce the human race, right? Ditto for Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives. Abraham and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister. Lot and his daughters had sex. With all this type of sex going on, which is absolutely forbidden today, God didn't say a thing. Not a peep out of him. No, "Okay this time, but don't do it again." Nope. If silence is acceptance, then God put his seal of approval on incest! And then, a few centuries later, at the beginning of the Christian church, a bunch of doughty old men said that God didn't want people to enjoy their bodies sexually? Oh, and one last thing about the Bible times. A man could have as many wives as he could afford, plus concubines, and slaves (conveniently called "servants"). He could have sex with, and have children by, any wife, concubine, or slave that he owned. He just wasn't supposed to go dallying in his neighbor's house.

Maybe, just maybe, the Christian's God wants us to enjoy our sexuality. Of course, like any behavior of good living, there are some rules that should be followed. (In any good society, the rules should be as few as possible; to ensure the protection of the rights of others while allowing the most freedom of choice for everyone.) The first rule, of course is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Or, in more modern language: Treat others as you want to be treated. The Buddha and Confucius both said something like that 500 years before Christ.

So, if you don't like to be forced, coerced, hurt, or degraded when having sex, don't do it to others. But more, you should make a serious attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Ditto for sexually transmissible diseases. Those two aren't hard in today's modern world. And finally, you should not have sex with anyone who is not mentally competent enough to willingly agree to have sex and to understand the possible consequences. Let's just say consenting adults only. And, if like Adam and Eve, or Lot and his daughters, you and a close relative decide to have sex, I would strongly suggest that you especially make a serious attempt to not have children. Not that you couldn't have physically and mentally healthy ones, but why take the chance?

So, after taking those few, simple rules into consideration, go ahead and enjoy sex for the wonderful, delicious, energizing, relaxing, fun, carnally exhilarating behavior that it is. Sex is not dirty, nasty, or obscene. Murder, rape, child molesting, torture and a whole bunch of other rights-violating behaviors are dirty, nasty, and obscene.