"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/)

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Defining Narco-Terrorism

My dictionary (The Random House College Dictionary, 1984--Yes, I know. I need to update) defines "terror" as: 1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear, 2. feeling, instance, or cause of intense fear. It defines "terrorism" as: 1. the use of terrorizing methods, 2. the state of fear and submission so produced, 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

"Narco", of course, comes from the word narcotic, which in itself comes from the Greek word "narkotikos", meaning to benumb or to make sleepy. (Alcohol, by the way is a true narcotic drug.) Today, with the Orwellian-type of "newspeak" our government uses, a narcotic drug is any of the presently illegal drugs, whether they are actually narcotic or not.

If one considers that up until 1914, opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine, among other drugs, were legally available to adults and that there was no--I repeat, no--criminal justice problems associated with the use of those drugs, as well as the fact that the addiction rate was declining, then one has to wonder why were they made illegal. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 began what today we call the "war on drugs." That act was passed because many religious groups lobbied Congress to make those drugs illegal on personal moral and religious grounds.

Congress, without legitimate Constitutional authority, passed laws against the manufacture, sales, and use of those drugs except under very stringent conditions. That meant that those people who happened to be addicted to those drugs--but causing little to no harm to themselves and none to others--had to resort to illegal means to obtain their drug of choice. Congress passed religious beliefs into law in order to make whoever might want to use those drugs become more moral. Congress, again, at the instigation of religious groups, became, without legitimate authority, our moral dictators.

The end result is that the real criminal element, those who would violate rights in order to make money, became involved in the drug business, which, thanks to Congress and religion, is now a multi-billion dollar a year growth industry. Today, due to the fact that these drugs are still illegal to adults the people we call terrorists, because they use terror to try and spread their religious and political beliefs, are being funded in large part by the manufacture and sales of narcotics.

I have written extensively on the false war, the so-called "war on drugs", here in my blog and in my work entitled "The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality." (See the side bar for how to obtain a copy of that treatise.)

But now, on to the point of this blog. If, by the making of certain substances illegal, substances that, all things considered, cause far less harm than alcohol, or tobacco, or poor eating habits combined with lack of exercise; and if the illegality of those substances causes them to be utilized by the real, rights-violating criminal elements and terrorist organizations; then, are those who are responsible for making those substances illegal actually responsible for helping the criminals and terrorists? Are they the true "narco-terrorists"?

I say yes. Emphatically yes. The true narco-terrorists are those who create the conditions that allow bad people to make lots of money from substances that, were they legal to adults, would cost next to nothing. So, when you read about a possible threat to the United States, or hear of bombs going off around the world, or mourn the loss of American lives in Iraq, or the murders on our streets by violent street gangs, then you can thank the U.S. Congress, among others, for creating this climate of fear and terror. Because, were those substances legal to adults, the criminal element and terrorists would have to use other, less effective ways, to get the money to do the evil deeds that they do.

Oh, I can hear some of you now. But if those drugs were legally available then the children.....! No. The children now can get those drugs more easily than they can alcohol, which is legal to adults. And that is what I am proposing: legal to adults. If anyone sells or procures these drugs to minors then, yes, they should be punished. And if you think that by re-legalizing these drugs the whole United States would go down the drain, so to speak, then you need to do your research. But more, you need to ask yourself this: If heroin were re-legalized today, would you become the first heroin addict on your suburban block tomorrow? And, if the answer is yes, then you need to seek professional, psychological help.

But first, check out my treatise "The Myth of Inalienable Rights...", because this really is about more than just the mere use of one mind-altering and/or addictive drug or another. It's about two things: The right, as an adult, to have the complete ownership and use of your body and mind, where your behavior does not violate the rights of others (inalienable rights); and its about stopping, or seriously slowing down the funding of criminal gangs and world terrorists who now can make huge amounts of money because certain substances wanted by millions of people have been made illegal, thereby making them artificially expensive.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Thoughts on the Christian God

The Christian God (which is derived from the Old Testament Hebrew God and which is also the God of the Muslims, although none of the three religions can agree on how this being is supposed to be properly worshipped or what exactly is the one set of true laws that we are supposed to follow) is an enigma to me. Well, really, the people who have set out the dogma in black and white and all those who call themselves Christians, ergo, believers in this dogma, are enigmas to me.

How so, you ask? This God is supposed to be the Creator of everything: The Earth and everything that is on it, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. That's a mighty big order for a single Creator. But lets just stick to the Earth and to the top dog down here, humans, but most importantly, lets explore the supposed attributes of this Christian God.

God is all-knowing. God is all-powerful. God is present everywhere. God created everything, as mentioned above. So here we have an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being in control of . . . us.

By logic, if this God knows everything, that would mean, well, everything; everything happening at this very instant, that has happened in the past, and that will happen in the future. That means that at the moment (or how ever long it took) of creation, God knew exactly what was going to happen to every single thing It created. Like you and me . . . and the being we call Satan, or the Devil. Because, remember, God created the Devil and, being all-knowing, God had to know exactly what the Devil was going to do and when . . . and then God let the Devil do it as though He, God, was taken by surprise. Or was that God's way of creating evil? And what does that say about God then?

But more, if this all-powerful creator God knows everything, then It knew when you would be born, what you would do in and with your life, and, most importantly, if you were going to die in a "state of grace" (whether you would go to God's Heaven) or not. By logical extension, that means it doesn't matter what you do in this life, whether you are good or bad, or really, really good or really, really bad. You will die in a state of grace or not and God knows that already, from the moment of creation of the universe, and you can't do anything to change it, that is, to surprise God, otherwise It wouldn't be all-knowing now would It. And if It is not all-knowing, what else isn't It?

I mean, God's got you down in the "Book of Life" as dying in a state of grace and going to heaven, but at the last second you do something to change that and you are now going to hell. And God didn't see it coming? Hmmmm?

Think about it. 'Nough said?

Well, no. I do have another thing to ponder over. The Bible just says that God created Adam and Eve, no one else. Then when Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden (something else that God didn't know was going to happen?) they started the whole human race. Excuse me, that's a whole lot of incest. But more, that's just not enough of a breeding population to breed up a genetically diverse, robust, and healthy bunch of people.

Again; think about it.

Logic versus emotion.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Should We Tolerate Intolerance?

The Muslim religion seems to me to be an extremely intolerant one. Any religion that cannot tolerate a foreigner, who does not live in a Muslim-ruled country, who lives in a nation that is tolerant of diverse views, that makes a cartoon about the Muslim prophet, Mohamed, is a religion that should not be tolerated. Wake up and smell the coffee. We are in the 21st Century.

Muslim writers who write books that criticize or hold an unorthodox view of the Muslim religion get death threats...officially, by religious/legal representatives of the Muslim faith. These fatwas claim the named person to be a heretic and criminal and therefore, by Muslim religion, they can be killed by any "good" Muslim anywhere in the world. A few years ago a Danish cartoonist had a death fatwa proclaimed against him for merely drawing a representation of Mohamed. Now a Swedish cartoonist is in a similar position.

Listen to me, all you good people who want a modern, not medieval, world, one in which we can criticize anything and tolerate the different beliefs that exist among us. It is time to declare bounties (the equivalent of a fatwa) on those Muslim leaders who issue these proclamations of ignorance and intolerance. May all those evil people burn in Hell forever.

If only it were so. But there just is no Hell, nor is there a Heaven. Do you think that a rational God would create a world like this, populate it with defectively created people like us, then say if you don't say "mother may I" and take two steps forward, one backwards, and three to the right, that I will torment you forever in Hell? That sounds like one hell of an irrational being. I wouldn't want that thing to be God of anything, let alone the universe.

(Geez! I'm just a little guy, and no one reads my blogs, but if some Muslim fascist should happen to, he could instigate a mullah somewhere to issue a fatwa against me because I'm criticizing the Muslim religion and possible also because I'm not a "believer." That, of course, would be illogical, but then, all religions are based on emotion, not logic.)

Moving on. More intolerance: the Jena 6 issue. Now I don't hold for violence except for defense of self, loved ones, and innocent others. But when I found out that they had been harassed for sitting under the "reserved for whites" tree on the school grounds, I could understand their rage, especially when nooses were found hanging in that tree the next day. They live in the deep South. There is a long and horrible tradition of intolerance in the South. A black man was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas not all that long ago. Countless black men have been lynched in the last 100 years. And don't think it won't happen again.

How could the school allow, or not be aware of the "for whites only" tree and why did the school principle and administration allow it to go on? They claimed that there was no such thing, that all students could sit anywhere on the campus that they wanted to. Obviously not. And I blame the intentionally blind teachers and school administrators at the high school.

This is just more intolerant b.s. like the emotionally-minded Muslims. If there was such a thing as Hell and Jesus Christ was the Son of a just God, then those intolerant whites and the Muslims would have fun trying to find extra ways to torture each other when they ended up there...which, in a logic universe, they would. And I'm not letting off the quiet bigots and intolerant ones among us; the ones who do nothing, maybe even say nothing, but quietly cheer on the intolerance that destroys a town, a society, eventually the world. And there are many of those--Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists alike.

Oh my, the human race! What an emotional, illogical mess you are.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Eating Ourselves Into Extinction

No, I'm not talking about the overweight problem in America. Although that is part of the picture. Modern dietary habits started about 400 years ago, when sugar was made available to the average person, not just the rich. A few decades later and white flour, again, normally only affordable by the rich at that time, came into common usage. Much later, in the 20th Century, animal fats were replaced by highly processed vegetable oils. Pasteurization, which, at the time of its discovery, was useful in stopping the spread of TB, was becoming the norm by the early part of the 20th Century. We have since found out that pasteurization causes milk, an excellent natural food when ingested raw, to become a health problem for many. And, of course, with modern veterinarian practices, cows--and therefore their milk--can be certified disease free. Then came trans-fats, artificial flavorings, dyes, and preservatives by the carload. And don't forget that modern meat production uses hormones and antibiotics that end up in us, none of which are necessary when cows, chickens, and pigs are raised in natural "free range" conditions.

Today there are serious health problems related to our low-fat, highly processed food stuffs. They are killing us slowly. And then there is soy. It is not the wonderful food that it has been made out to be . . . except for the farmers and food processors who make money off of it.

In the years before our modern diet became entrenched, before the unproven theory that saturated fats and cholesterol levels over 200 caused heart disease, there was low rates of heart disease and cancer and almost no autism and ADA. Yet, our great-grandparents and all those who came before them ate red meat, butter, and cream; cooked in lard and tallow or coconut oil. They also prepared their whole grains by soaking, sprouting, or fermenting them. Think of sourdough bread, or how mama or grandma used to soak the beans overnight before cooking them. Five hundred years ago, that included rice in Asia and oats in Europe, among other grains that were not eaten without some sort of process that made them easier to digest and healthier overall.

Saturated fats and cholesterol are necessary for proper brain development in babies and growing children, right up into and through their adolescent years. Studies have shown that people with low cholesterol--160 and below--have a higher rate of death for all causes (including suicide!) than people with cholesterol rates of 200 to 240. Saturated fats are also needed for various immune functions in our bodies. Other studies have shown that people with low cholesterol contract and die from infectious diseases at a higher rate than those who eat more saturated fat and have high cholesterol numbers.

Some of the problems with soy is that it could be lowering the age of puberty in girls, raising the age of puberty in boys, lowering testosterone levels in men, and enhancing cancer-causing agents that are always in our bodies. And no, soy or soya is not an ancient, respected oriental food. It has only been used on a regular basis since about 1100 A.D., and then only in fermented forms, and further, in small quantities infrequently. Soy, as well as all grains, nuts, and seeds contain phytic acid which inhibit vitamin and mineral uptake by the body. They also contain other chemicals that are harmful to us unless deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or fermenting. Doing so, it has been discovered, also increases the availability of the nutrients contained in those grains.

Modern food processing, besides stripping away much of the good parts of the grains, uses high temperature and high pressure techniques that twist and distorts fragile protein molecules, turning them into toxic molecules and producing high levels of free radicals. And, if that wasn't bad enough, excitotoxins, like MSG (in various forms and under various names) are produced or added to our modern processed foods. Those chemicals have been proven to be extremely deleterious to our health.

All of this unnatural food processing is slowly killing us and reducing our fertility and the viability of the human race. If the whole world were to eat like the average American, then I would say don't worry about global warming or possible asteroid impact or any other natural disaster. The human race would decimate itself within five to six generations, to the point that the few million survivors would have to go back to the ancient, but healthy ways of food gathering and cooking.

You might want to visit the Weston A. Price Foundation site and look around. There are several excellent articles, written by qualified professionals, and backed up by scientific studies. Most of those studies have been around for years, but they have been ignored by those trying to prove the "lipid theory" (that all saturated fats, not just the trans-fats, are bad for you). Those studies have also been ignored because they show that highly processed foods are dangerous to our health, and golly gee-whiz, the multi-billion dollar a year food processing industry just doesn't want that information to become common knowledge.

The only reason the average life-span of Americans is longer today is because of medical intervention, not because we have better food choices. If you don't have your health, all the money in the world is pointless. So, since it is your health, and that of your children, go to the Weston A. Price site (above) and get yourself educated about what constitutes good food choices.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Religious-Based Laws Rule Secular Society

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

"Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

"In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting.

"It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crime be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such thing as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

"For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth." Lysander Spooner (1808-1887).

Not many people know of Lysander Spooner. He was what we might call an individual anarchist, always challenging the legitimate power of the government. Today we might call him a Libertarian.

According to Mr. Spooner (with whom I agree absolutely) there are vices and there are crimes. Crimes are behaviors that violate the rights of others. Vices are behaviors that pertain strictly to the person who is doing the behavior and do not violate the rights of others.

Vices should be our inalienable right . . . if we own the property of our bodies and our minds. Laws against vices are directly based on religious beliefs. But if you do not believe certain religious teaching or belong to certain churches (or any church) the government, by its own Constitution, should not be able to enforce secular laws prohibiting your participation in any or all of the various vices, just so long as you are not violating the rights of others. That would be the same as the government actively and directly supporting the religious or personal moral beliefs of some over the religious or personal moral beliefs of others.

But that's just my opinion, and who am I? You don't know me, and most of you have never heard of Lysander Spooner. But anyone who has a reasonable education, especially in history and politics should know who John Stuart Mill was. Here's what that British philosopher had to say about this issue.

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

In a truly free and liberty-loving society, the government has no legitimate power to violate the rights of adults whose actions and behaviors do not violate the rights of others. This is the basis of the principle of inalienable rights, which no government in the world, including the United States, respects and upholds. That is what Lysander Spooner and John Stuart Mill were talking about. That is what those of us who really wants true freedom and liberty need to fight for daily.

I have written more extensively on this issue in my paper entitled The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality. See the side bar.

Monday, September 17, 2007

What Would You Do If You Had To Choose?

The following is from my work titled 52 Perverse Questions. First, I will give you the definition of "perverse" as presented in 52PQ, then I will give you the preface to that work, finally, I will give you one of the questions and my answer to it. The purpose of 52PQ, my whole purpose in life actually, is to try and get people to think, and to think logically. That is much harder than it sounds. I've been at it for nearly 50 years and I haven't converted many to the logical, versus emotional, side of life.

Perverse, a definition: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary). This then begs the question of what is wrong and what is right? Can questions be perverse, or is it the answers to the questions, that is, the actions taken in regard to the questions that are perverse? What rules do we need in our modern society to navigate the questions that life puts before us so that we make right decisions instead of wrong or perverse decisions?


“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.

Question 8, from my 52PQ: Assume that a young man and young woman that you know have fallen in love and are planning to get married. They were orphaned as babies, one and two years old. Due to circumstances at the time the children were sent to two different orphanages and later adopted by two different families. You knew their parents and know that they are actually half-brother and half-sister; same mother, different fathers. The records have been lost and no one but you knows the relationship of these two young people, not even the young couple's adoptive families. Further, the young woman has become pregnant by the young man. You must choose between (A) telling them the truth (and you have the evidence to back up your words) or (B) wishing them a very happy and long marriage and congratulating them on the pregnancy.

The answer for number 8: Half brother and sister are nearly like first cousins who, in many states of the United States and many other nations, can legally marry. Were they full brother and sister you might wish to inform them and let them make the decision themselves. Abraham, of the Bible, and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister; same father, different mothers. The major problem with having sex with a close relative—incest—is the possibility of producing mentally and/or physically weak, sickly, or deformed children, due to reinforcement of bad recessive genes. People who carry bad recessive genes can marry with no legal problems, even if both persons carry the bad recessive, as long as they are not close relatives, because there is no DNA screening done. Further, not every child born of an incestuous relationship is genetically damaged. It is possible that this couple, the half brother and sister could well have normal, healthy children. If you tell them now it would serve no purpose except to upset them, maybe break up a happy couple, and cause her to get an abortion or, at the very least, worry herself sick until the birth of the child. (B) = correct.

Question number 8 is a rather "tame" one. There are many others that a majority of the people who read them would find shocking. Still, all the questions are designed to make one think logically . . . if one can.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Cholesterol Testing for Babies?

Many studies that show the benefits of cholesterol and why it is critical for proper health are being ignored in favor of the unproven, but widely accepted, lipid theory of heart disease. The lipid theory states, basically, that all saturated fats are bad for us, that they will raise our cholesterol levels, and that they cause arterial plaque build-up and heart disease. Cholesterol has been made into a demon that must be banished at all costs and now, a group of British doctors are saying that children as young as 15 months old (babies, really) should be tested for high cholesterol levels.

There are just a couple of problems with that proposal. Mother’s milk, the perfect food for babies, is very high in saturated fat and cholesterol. [1] Babies and growing children need cholesterol for the proper and healthy development of their brains and nervous systems. [2]

It has been shown in several studies that the people who have high cholesterol levels live longer than those who do not. Professor David R. Jacobs, et al. (Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota), researched the results of more than 15 large-scale studies of over 65 thousand deaths. The results showed that there was a higher risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases by those people who had low cholesterol levels. [3]

The following statement was published in The Lancet, Vol. 358, Number 9279, Aug. 2001: “Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.” [4]

And what is the treatment for people with, supposedly, high cholesterol? Statin drugs like Lipitor. But those drugs are not the wonder drugs that the pharmaceutical companies who make them would have you believe. In a study of 20 people with regular heart capacities, after six months on a regimen of low dose Lipitor (20 mg/day), the study group’s heart functions became abnormal. They had low levels of a necessary chemical called “Co-Q 10. This led to muscle pain and weakness. [5] Among the symptoms are slurred speech, balance problems, and severe fatigue. [6]

So what would the good doctors treat babies with, if they found they had, supposedly, high cholesterol levels? Statins? The testing done and the negative effects of statins were all on adults, usually over 40 years old. What would happen to small children who would be forced to take this medicine for perhaps years?

Cholesterol is not our enemy. It is necessary for normal development and healthy living right through our old age and up to our deaths. In 1948 a study was begun in Framingham, Massachusetts: The Framingham Heart Study. Forty years later the director of the program was forced to admit the following: “In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’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.” The study did show that those people who were overweight and had “abnormally” high levels of cholesterol had a somewhat greater risk for heart problems, but not by much. [7]

So what can be considered to be normal or good levels of cholesterol? According to Mary Enig, PhD, an internationally recognized expert in dietary fats, if your cholesterol levels are between 200 and 240, they are normal. [8]

There is so much to this cholesterol issue that is not being told by the people who are funding many medical researchers—large food processing and pharmaceutical companies. To be fully informed we all need to take the time to do a little research on our own. After all, it’s our health that we are talking about. With good health we can live good lives, whether we are rich or poor. Below are several sites within the Weston A. Price Foundation web pages. All their articles and claims are backed by reviewable studies.


[1] http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html

[2] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#chol

[3] http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html

[4] http://www.westonaprice.org/askdoctor/lowcholesterol.html

[5] http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

[8] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_phony.html

Friday, September 14, 2007

Aspirin Cake

The following recipe comes from a cookbook I found in my sister's cabinet. It's Our Own 'Little" Cookbook, Recipes From Little Elementary (Dr. John R. Little Elementary School, Arvada, Colorado, 1982)

Aspirin Cake is a recipe donated by Vicki Droney who, at the time, evidently had three small children.

Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Turn down T.V. Remove toys from counter-top.
Measure 2 cups flour. Get baking powder.
Remove John's hands from flour.
Put flour, baking powder and salt in sifter.
Vacuum mixture off kitchen floor (John spilled it).
Get an egg.
Answer phone.
Separate egg and warm Adam's bottle.
Help Mary figure out a new math problem (the old reliable way).
Gease pan; salesman at the door.
Take 1/4 inch of salt from greased pan and look for John.
Put mess in wastebasket, dishes in dishwasher.
Call the bakery.
Take an Aspirin.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Problems With Human-Caused Global Warming Theory

It is believed like religious dogma that the present global warming is all the fault of us nasty, greedy ol' humans. This is a "consensus" among scientists, we have been told . . . except, as always, there are some heretics who claim that the Earth isn't flat.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." Michael Crichton speech,2003, referring to the global warming debate.

In an article titled The Gospel According to Gore , by Mary Ellen Tiffany Gilder, she states that "Carbon dioxide has never driven temperature. In fact, the evidence shows that historically, temperature has driven CO2." (http://www.sitewave.net/news/)

So, as Ms. Gilder asks, if it isn't the CO2 causing the warming, what could it be? Well, there have been studies done that show that the Sun periodically puts out more, then less energy. Since we get all energy (and warming) either directly or indirectly (wood, coal, oil) from the Sun, it could just be possible that the Sun could effect the climate on Earth. What a novel concept.

What about the ice core samples that show that there was less CO2 in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times? A Polish scientist explains that. "Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases." Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 , written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 2004, by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland. (http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm). The good professor states that CO2 levels in pre-industrialized Europe were higher than has been reported.

"The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and energy flows into and out of the ocean which largely determines what the global mean temperature of the surface atmosphere will settle to. These flows, especially evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of CO2. This is clearly evident in the tropics where there has been no temperature increase at all in spite of a 50% increase in CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases." The Deep Blue Sea, by John L. Daly (http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm) (If you go to the above site, go to the bottom of the article and click on "Waiting for the Greenhouse", then click on Mr. Daly's biography. Mr. Daly died in 2004.)

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Why? Because it is 100 times as effective as CO2. Small changes in water vapor is more significant than large changes in CO2. If, for some reason, we are experiencing, or have just gone through, one of the periodic incidences of greater solar output, then more water vapor would be in the atmosphere helping to trap more heat.

If you do your homework, you will find that there are many scientists out there who do not agree that the global warming we are now experiencing is man-caused. From the research that I have done, I agree with them.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Hate Crimes and Civil Rights Violations

Bear with me here. It may take me awhile to get to my point. This blog is about the brutal rape and torture of a 20-year-old black woman in Charleston, West Virgina recently.

According to the Associate Press report, six white people illegally imprisoned the young black woman for about a week. Evidently they had beaten her, raped her, stabbed her (and otherwise cut her), choked her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, and drink from a toilet, all the while she was being called "nigger."

The perpetrators have been arrested and are in custody. They are a mother and her son, another mother and her daughter, and two other young men. If these people actually did this--and since the police rescued the young black woman from the house in which she was being held and tortured, there is no reason to believe otherwise--then they are incredibly evil people. (I wonder if they go to church and pray to Jesus Christ?)

One of the women in custody evidently told the victim that they were doing what they did to her because she was black. Now this begs the question: If these oh so white people think that black people, merely because they have dark skin, deserved to be tortured and, one can only assume, eventually killed; that is, if by being black she was such a horrible thing, then why did the white men have sex with her? Why would they sully their lilly-whiteness by putting their penises into such a vile creature? Unless, of course, they believe that all women are beneath contempt and can be treated however they, the dominate male, wishes to treat them. Not only are these people evil, they are also very illogical, but then, most people like this are.

So on to my point. The authorities are considering charging the six with "hate" crimes. An F.B.I. spokesman said that they were considering charging them with "civil rights" violations. What! Excuse me, but any time anyone murders, rapes, assaults, robs, burglarizes, embezzles, or vandalizes, that is a violation of the rights of someone else. If they are citizens, civilians, that is a violation of that person's civil rights. There need be no extra law specifically stating that the perpetrator violated the victims "civil" rights. That should be a given.

As to hate crime, well, the feds came up with that because many states, especially in the South, weren't particularly interested in pursuing justice if a white person violated a black person's rights, merely because he or she was black. The fact is, if someone burns a cross on a black person's lawn, that someone is committing a crime that is defined in law and punishable. At the very least it is trespassing, destruction of property (the lawn), disturbing the peace, and creating a public nuisance. That doesn't seem like much, but it could be good for a few weeks or months in the county jail, plus a few hundred or thousands of dollars in fines. But think, what would a black person have been charged with if the situations were reversed, if the black person burned a hate-charged symbol on some white person's lawn . . . assuming he wasn't taken out and shot or hanged immediately upon being apprehended. He would probably be charged with arson and attempted murder. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander . . . if justice is to be done. (In the South, when it comes to blacks? Yeah right.)

Hate crimes and civil rights violations b.s. aside, the evil white people in this case should be charged with false imprisonment, torture, assault, rape, and whatever else the law allows, and all charges should be classified as "aggravated". The charges should be run consecutive. These bad people should do no less than 20 years in prison, including any good conduct time.

Maybe "hate" crime and "civil rights" violation laws serve a purpose. But there are laws enough on the books already to take care of all situations, if we want justice to be done. Of course, there are many, many people, full of hate towards others of different color and race, who don't want justice for those people. They have judged them ahead of time, as that is what prejudice means: pre-justice. I wonder how many of those hateful folks go to church and pray to Jesus Christ? I mean, I don't remember any place in the Bible where Jesus (who was, by the way, in every sense a Jew) said, "God, my Father is only for the white people, everyone else you can abuse and kill as you please."

Sunday, September 09, 2007

More Success in the War on Drugs...it pumps money into the coffers of the Muslim terrorists

This weekend Anderson Cooper's report entitled Narco State (or maybe The Narco State) was aired on CNN. I haven't seen it yet, but from the ads for it, I believe it is showing us how well our government is doing in prolonging the war on terrorism. Yes, the war on drugs is helping Bush II to beat the drum of war ever louder. Thank God for politics.

One estimate, from Alcohol-and-Drug-Guide.com (http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/heroin-use-usa.html), says that the U.S. is spending 50 billion dollars a year in the war on drugs. Back in the early nineties, I read an article in which the writer (for the New York Times Magazine) claimed that the total cost of the war on drugs, at all levels, local, state, and federal, was 100 billion a year.

So what are we getting for this mere 50 to 100 billion dollars? According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report for 2003, there were slightly over 164,000 emergency room reports involving heroin. According to Alcohol-and-Drug-Guide.com 1.3% of all Americans have ever tried heroin in their lifetime, 0.2% have used in the last year, and 0.1% have used in the last month. (That would be 3.9 million, 600 thousand, and 300 thousand, respectively.)

Okay, 300 thousand monthly users is quite a few people, but when you consider that alcohol is 1) a true narcotic drug, 2) there are several million users, and 3) that alcohol use causes the deaths of nearly 100,000 people every year, then that many heroin users is not really that big a deal. According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10) [t]he leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435000 deaths; 18.1%
of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400000 deaths; 16.6%), and
alcohol consumption (85000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial
agents (75000), toxic agents (55000), motor vehicle crashes (43000), incidents
involving firearms (29000), sexual behaviors (20000), and illicit use of drugs

But the good news is that the war on drugs is helping to fund the terrorists who are determined to destroy our nation and culture. (See the Anderson Cooper CNN report.) How is this good news? Because it allows the politicians to continue to fight a holy war against the unholy heathens. You see, if the government stopped the war on drugs; made all presently illegal drugs legally available to adults, then several things would happen.

First, the price of heroin (as well as all other drugs) would plummet. Then the narco-terrorists, Muslim extremists included, would lose a huge money cow that they have been milking to fund their war on us. And, incidentally, the violent drug cartels and violent street gangs would be out of business too. Another consequence is that by leaving the laws against drug use by minors in place, it would become much harder for minors to get their sweaty little paws on those drugs.

But, the down side would be that the politicians wouldn't have big drum to beat, with a loudspeaker blaring out how tough on crime (insert "drugs") and tough on terrorists they are. Well folks, if 300,000 heroin users and a small percentage of the 17,000 drug-related deaths are worth between 50 and 100 billion dollars a year, and a whole lot more war from well-funded terrorists, then we will just have to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and keep up the success in the war on drugs.

Oh, by the way, many studies have confirmed that alcohol is highly related to heroin overdose deaths. (http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id24.html). That means, of course, if the drug alcohol was prohibited (yeah, right, snicker, snicker) then heroin deaths would drop substantially. But again, the politicians really want to help us and therefore must protect us from ourselves by keeping alcohol legal and heroin illegal. Besides, what would politicians use to relax if they made alcohol illegal (again)?

Thursday, September 06, 2007


Ah, hummingbirds! Who doesn't like them? Well, given six billion plus people on this Earth, I suppose there are one or two.

Off and on, when I was outside, I noticed one or two hummingbirds around the house, so I went out and bought a hummingbird feeder, four stations, with little places for them to sit, no waiting. Well, within one week there were ten to twelve of the little creatures, all wanting to suck up the fake nectar (one part sugar to four parts water . . . and you don't have to boil it). It was fun watching all the macho territorial displays and hearing all the squeaks and peeps and whatnot sounds that they make, and to watch them zip here and zoom there, either chasing or being chased away from the feeder.

I also found out, on the Internet, that the sugar water is, like the nectar of flowers, just an energy drink to them. It's not their main food source. It seems the fascinating little birds eat soft-bodied insects like flies and mosquitoes, spiders also. That's where they get their protein and fats. Yea hummers! Get those nasty ol' bugs.

I also like to water the little patch of lawn we have, by hand. I like doing it early, just as the sun is coming up. It's cool and quiet then. Imagine my surprise two weeks ago when a hummer came zooming up in front of me, just withing the spray area of my spray nozzle. Then it flew quickly to a dead branch on a nearby oak tree, about ten feet away. I got the message and shot a fine spray up into the air where it fell gently on the little bird. It loved it! It sat there for almost three minutes, preening, spreading its wings, shifting its body. It was an amazing site. When I got tired of watering the dead tree branch and shifted the spray back down to the grass, the hummingbird flew off.

Well it happened again today, twice. The first incident happened in exactly the same place and in the same way. When I eventually got back to watering the grass and was on a different patch, just a couple of minutes later, the hummingbird came back. (Actually, there is no way that I can tell if it is the same bird or not. I'm just assuming it is.) It flew into the hose spraying area then up into the same tree, but at a different and higher location. So I sprayed it again for about two minutes. I saw another hummer sitting to the left and even higher and decided to spray it too. Evidently, it didn't want a shower, as it flew away.

Okay, no big deal. Bit of nature that I wasn't aware of. But I liked it. I will look forward to giving out more hummingbird showers in the future. Cool!

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Speaking about sex....

Speaking about sex, is it just me or are there other red-blooded, American, heterosexual males (or bi-females) that would like to see a porn cartoon starring the Esurance cartoon female with the pink hair?

No, I am not perverse. According to my dictionary (The Random House College Dictionary, 1984), perverse means the following:
--Willfully determined not to do what is expected or desired. (First definition.)
--Persistent or obstinate in what is wrong. (Fourth definition; 2 and 3 really weren't applicable here.)
--Turned away from what is right, good, or proper. (Fifth definition.)

Any intelligent, educated and logical person knows that normally healthy heterosexual males like, or are aroused by, graphic sexual depictions. It's hardwired into our brains. So that would be what is to be "expected". . . and what I, and many others, "desire."

Drawing, selling, and looking at a pornographic cartoon violates no one's rights. It cannot be wrong in a truly secular sense, in a truly free and liberty-loving society. Some may find it to be against their religion or morally wrong . . . but I don't go to that church. Therefore, I cannot logically see how my desire is wrong.

That which is "good", "right", or "proper" differs from age-to-age, culture-to-culture, nation-to-nation, religion-to-religion, and even among people within the same age, culture, nation, and religion to some degree. So, exactly what is good, right, and proper? I say it is not violating the rights of others. Treating others as I want to be treated. Everything else is up for grabs. If viewing a porn cartoon such as I suggested gives me pleasure and doesn't harm other people or their property, then, as far as I'm concerned, it is good, right, and proper and no one's business but mine.

There is the school of thought that viewing porn, even cartoon versions of it, will make me want to force myself sexually on minors and unwilling adults. That school of thinking is really illogical and based purely on emotion, generally coming from the dogma of one religion or another. I have been viewing pornography in one form or another (even inside my head . . . it's called fantasizing) for decades and I still don't want to have non-consensual sex with anyone. So, viewing the Esurance gal getting hers wouldn't lead me into violent behavior towards others, nor would it lead me to have sex with a minor. (By definition, sex with a minor is rape, even if she agrees to it.)

Well, this porn cartoon thing was just a thought . . . one I think of nearly every time I see one of the Esurance commercials. No, I'm not perverse. Although I just may have an over-active imagination . . . and too much time on my hands.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007


A recent study from England was published in which it raised the question of marijuana use and the likelihood of developing a psychosis. In a MSNBC.com report, it was stated that "[e]ven limited use could up chance of serious mental illness by 40 percent."

From the web site for The Royal College of Psychiatrists, regarding cannabis and mental health, it was stated that "[t]here is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past."

It seems that those most at risk are young people, adolescents, who begin using marijuana at an early age. That seems logical. The brain is still going through a development stage, up to around the age of 20, there could be interference problems with using mind altering drugs. Again, from The Royal College of Psychiatrists: "A massive process of 'neural pruning' is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects."

In another article from the site, Alcohol: Our Favourite Drug The Royal College of Psychiatrists position is that "[m]ost people don't realise that alcohol causes much more harm than illegal drugs like heroin and cannabis. It is a tranquilizer, it is addictive and it helps to cause many hospital admissions for physical illness and accidents." Also, in the United States at least, according to the U.S. Justice Department, the use of alcohol is indicated in over 50% of all violent crime, which cannot be said for marijuana.

In an article from The Merck Manual of Health & Aging (Section 3, Chapter 32, Topic: Psychosis), under "Causes" (of psychoses) it states that "[e]xcessive alcohol use can cause temporary psychosis; chronic psychosis can result if the drinking is long-term."

My point here is that taking any drug, alcohol included, can be a risky business and not for minors, whose brains are not fully developed. This is a good reason why to make those drugs prohibited to minors and to punish those who provide it for them. But, even the legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine (tobacco) carry great risk to the users. As adults, we should be free to choose to risk our lives. But in a truly free and liberty-loving nation, the right to risk ones life does not create an equal obligation on society to take care of the risk-takers if things go bad for them. They make their choices, as adults, they must suffer the negative consequences if there are any. If they can get family or private help, fine, but taxpayers' money should not be used to help them.

Oh, by the way, the MSNBC.com article also said that "[t]he researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis.... There could be something else about marijuana users, 'like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses.'"

Monday, September 03, 2007

Roe v Wade Not Applicable

My sister recently told me of niece of hers by marriage. She's 19 or 20 years old. She has three children. She got pregnant with the first child when she was 15. Now this young woman--and I say woman, because she is a mother of three--wants to have a tubal ligation done so that she won't ever get pregnant again. Guess what? The State of California says that she can't make that decision until she's 21-year-old!

Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade concluding "that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." The right to privacy would suggest that a woman who wants to have an operation to, in effect, sterilize herself, would be a decision between her and her physician. After all, if a 19 or 20 year old woman can make the very important decision to kill a fetus, for whatever reason she wants to as long as it is not considered medically viable, it seems logical that she should also have the right to end her ability to get pregnant, especially, as in this case, when she already has three children.

In this type of case the woman is not harming any other person, or potential person. She is using her body as she wishes and not violating the rights of others. If she owns herself, then that is her right. Otherwise she is a slave to whoever can grant or deny her this operation. In this case, the State of California.

If it is an issue of age, with 21 being a magical delineation of rational abilities, then how is it that she can drive a car--potentially a most dangerous behavior--or vote--possibly more dangerous considering that people have gotten into office who would strip us of our rights completely and only grant us government privileges.

No. A mother of three, even at the age of 19, owns the property of her body and has the right to decide to have a pregnancy preventing operation. The State has no legitimate power to stop her. The government might require her doctor to counsel her seriously, and provide her with literature regarding the pros and cons of her decision. But the government has no right to stop her, especially when you consider, as stated above, she could have an abortion without the permission of the State.

This young woman is, to the best of my knowledge, a good mother and she is married. They are not rich, but they are getting by. She and her husband come from a culture that is rather machismo and, unfortunately, for her husband to wear a little rubber device over his willie is something that he just would never do. But that isn't the point. He shouldn't have to if he doesn't want to. His wife should be able to get this operation without having to use other birth control methods. She has three children and doesn't want any more. Either she owns the property of her body and mind or she doesn't. If she does then the State must get out of the way. If she doesn't, then none of us do and the State should just stop pretending to be anything but our civil master.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

The Senator Craig Flap

I've been told that August is normally a slow news month. I guess that's why, on any channel of my television that I turn to, to watch news, all I see are stories about Senator Craig.

Personally, I don't care if he is gay, or if he is just bi. I do care if he is stupid, because, as the comdian says, "you can't fix stupid." And let's face it, do we really need another stupid person in Congress passing laws that we will have to obey?

I don't know why the police should care and why they have cops waiting in public restrooms trying to arrest gay men. If it's a matter of protecting minors, then, okay. If it's only a matter of different moral beliefs and practises among consenting adults, then that is not a secular, criminal matter. It's a vice, if anything, although millions of gay people would argue differently, and vices should not be crimes.

The problem, however, is that Senator Craig foolishly pleaded guilty to the charge. It's a misdemeanor; no big deal in my book. It's not like he was caught stealing the taxpayers' money, or molesting children. But the whole sexual orientation things is such a big deal to so many people, needlessly, that now the Republicans want to force him out of office. Does being gay, or bi, means that you are unable to do your congressional job as well as a heterosexual legislator? I really don't think so.

But, as of today, that's just so much water under the bridge. It looks like Senator Craig will resign his position immediately; may have already for all I know. But now I will get to the heart of this blog: Senator Craig will be eligible for 80% of his Senate salary, or $132,000 a year. That's right for the rest of his life he will be getting taxpayer money in the amount of one hundred, thirty-two thousand dollars per year!

I have a problem with that. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income is a little more than $44,000 per year. I assume that is with both mom and dad working. I assume that because, again according to the Census Bureau, the median per capita income is about $21,500 per year. That means that Senator Craig will be making three times as much as the average working couple and over six times as much as the average working person. And that doesn't include the other perks, such as lifetime medical care at taxpayer expense, which a legislator can get if he or she is only elected one time to Congress!

When did we allow our government to treat lawmakers like a new order of aristocracy? Of course, we have to pay those lawmakers something, and it should be substantial, but reasonably so. One hundred sixty-five thousand dollars a year for a Senator is, in my opinion, quite unreasonable. Yes, they do important work . . . sometimes. But the job is government service. One shouldn't be allowed to live at that level at the taxpayers' expense. Yes, I know that CEO's of major corporations make several times that each year. But those are private organizations, not public ones. No one is forced to buy stock in those companies or forced to purchase their products. Paying taxes, however, is unavoidable, like death. Paying legislators huge salaries is just another way that the government has gotten out of control and is screwing the producing workers that support it.

Personally, I think all legislators in Washington should have to live in special, public housing, adequate for the needs of their families, but definitely not opulent. Any expenses accrued for doing their jobs (specifically related to government work), such as necessary travel expenses should be paid for by the taxpayers. After that, they should only get a modest salary, huge by most people's standard, of say, $75,000 a year, tops. They will be getting free medical for life after all. And after housing, medical, and travel expenses are paid, then $75,000 per year is a damned good wage if you can get it, which most of us can't. So why do we treat our legislators as though they were royalty? They are just people; some intelligent, some not so intelligent; some good, some bad. They are supposed to be doing the job for the good of the nation. If they need a huge yearly salary, then let them do something else, in the private sector, not at the expense of the already hard-hit taxpayers.

The lesson that I am taking away from this Senator Craig flap is not about whther he is gay or not, but that being a politician, at least on the federal level seems like a good way to live well at the expense of everyone else, whether they voted for you or not.