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!

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

100 Billion Dollars!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh Wonderful Woman (a poem)

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

Hypocrisy

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

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

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

Tobacco use kills around 430,000 people every year.

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

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

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

I call that HYPOCRISY!

Questioning Conventional Wisdom

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

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

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

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

TANSTAAFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government versus control

To govern means to control. In today's America, the government is controlling us more and more. Just how much control (rules, regulations, laws) do you need by a politician, policeman, or bureaucrat? How much do you want to be controlled by these government workers? How do they know what is best for you, where you actions do not physically harm others, the property of others, or otherwise interfere with their rights?

Our pioneering ancestors were independent people, strong and willing and able to do it themselves. Beware of what you ask for...from the government. It may come back (the law of unintended consequences) to bite you. People today are mostly dependent on the government. As Albert J. Nock said many years ago, the people today look to the government as the authority to answer all their problems, like the people in the 15th Century looked to the Catholic Church. And, truly, many of today's laws and legislation have to do with personal moral issues...which should be each adults right to decide, not the State's. Again, just so long as said adult is not violating the rights of others.

The government is not an entity unto itself. It is made up of and run by people. These people are no better and, quite often, much worse than the average person. Why else would they want to be in a position to control us? Other than to ride the "gravy train" of tax-paid jobs, with better pay and benefits than the average worker (who is supporting them) and who are almost impossible to fire no matter how bad they are.

The founding fathers warned us of the kind of government we now have. Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, which go something like this: When the government is afraid of the people you have liberty. When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny. Who among us is not afraid of the government in one way or another? The IRS alone is a major terror factor in many people's lives, but it is not the only government agency that interferes, controls, and terrorizes us.

Incest in the Bible

Incest is really a bad thing...when it amounts to child molesting. But how bad is it between consenting adults?

Did you know that Abraham and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister? Yep, same father different mothers. That bit of incestuous relationship didn't seem to bother God one bit. After all, He started a whole nation of people from Abraham and Sarah.

Then, what about Lot, Abraham's brother. When Lot and his family got the hell out of Sodom and Gomorrah, because God was destroying it with fire and brimstone (I guess because they weren't very nice people) Lot's wife looked back, which she had been told not to, and was turned into a pillar of salt. A bit harsh for just one wistful look, don't you think. Lot and his two daughter's ended up living in a cave and, because there were no other people around, Lot's daughters cooked up a plan to get dad drunk then have sex with him...to save his "seed." So, they did, he did--ostensible being so drunk he didn't know what he was doing--and his daughters got pregnant and later had baby boys; the founders of the Moabites and Ammonites. (The Bible, King James version, Genesis:19:30-38.)

Okay, besides the incest thing, for which God did nothing (yet He had just destroyed two cities for doing pretty much the same stuff, with a dog and pony show thrown in, and He had killed Lot's wife for just a peek over her shoulder) what really gets me is that we are supposed to believe that Lot's daughters got him drunk on wine then had sex with him without him knowing what he was doing! Who else was there? They were living alone in a cave. If he wasn't passed out then he had to know that the sweet snuggley woman in bed with him was one of his daughters. And, if he was passed out, he couldn't perform. I used to drink a lot, way too much. I have reformed my ways, but when I was too drunk to perform sexually, I was still aware enough to know with whom I was in bed. Then there's the two night's in a row drunk out of your mind on wine. Ooofff! What a hangover. Don't know if they could have got pop's drunk the second night. He might have been puking his guts out all day and begged off. There is another explanation, of course. Lot was a randy old goat, his daughters were horny young women, and there was no one around to object to a little family fun.

In any case, the ban on incest came later in the Bible. It is apparent, if we are to believe the Bible as "the truth", that God has incest among consenting adults low down on the list of no-no's. For instance, besides Abraham and his half-sister wife, and Lot and his daughters, with whom did Adam and Eve and their children have sex with to produce the human race; or Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives after the flood? Hmmmmmmm? Very interesting, no?

Smokin' hot bodies

I like the Nutri-System ads; the mothers who are grandmothers, and others, with smoking hot bodies. I like them because I like to view scantily clad, attractive women...even if they are 40. I'm 60, but I'm in good health and still a full and complete man. But why, I have to ask, would a mother (MILF) and grandmother (GILF?) want to show their sexy bodies to a bunch of horny men...at least half of the viewing public, no? Maybe, they aren't what my mother (may she rest in peace) would call a good little Christian girl. Of course, I'm not a good little Christian boy, which my mother knew and prayed about. I'm a rational hedonist with Libertarian politics and love viewing smoking hot bodies, whether on 20-somethings or 40-somethings...or even, and I have seen them, on 50-somethings. That's what's so good about being an "old fart." One's viewing pleasure for women is of a much wider scope, with greater acceptance, than, say, a 20- or 30-something male.

Go Nutri-System. Let's see more smoking hot bodies of mature women...mothers, grandmothers, married, or single. But you women, think about what kind of message you are sending. You are, in fact, sex images for men you do not know and probably don't want to know.

HELP!

Help! I'm trapped in a time warp in Arizona. (Do you remember doing the time warp?)

SPEED KILLS

That was the message in the sixties: Speed Kills. And it wasn't about driving fast. And the people that were "speed" users (a.k.a. amphetamines and methamphetamines) we called "speed freaks." They were easy to spot. They looked skeletal...rather like the anorexic runway models and certain female celebrities.

The government propaganda is that once hooked by methamphetamine the vast majority of users will be unable to quit...ever. Maybe so, maybe no. Remember the 375,000 "crack" babies being born every year? Babies so mentally damaged in utero by their mother's "crack" abuse that they would always need to be cared for, as in the rest of their lives? Not true in spades.

Meth is bad. (Yes kids, it really does rot your teeth, among other, worse effects.) There is no doubt in my mind of that. But I also know that the government has an agenda to pursue, which isn't always based on truth and justice. I would just like to be able to know what the facts are on addiction rates and recovery rates concerning meth, or what they could be if the government would just get out of the way.

What Is Truth?

Truth is objective reality. Nothing more, nothing less. But how can such subjective creatures as humans are ever really know objective reality? Logic helps, but only just a little.

I will be offline for a few days, perhaps as much as a month. Of course, that really doesn't matter. I think I've only had one person visit my blog (somewhere joe) or, if anyone else did, they weren't moved to comment. Later..............

An Excerpt from The Guru Papers

"The 'morality play' solution cannot stand up under close examination. Eternity is a long time. To be damned eternally for succumbing to the powerful temptations that God (though his vehicle Satan) put forth as a test again paints a picture of a harsh, vengeful God who gives the ultimate punishment for disobedience. What caring parent would so test and punish a child? Also, to postulate that God created evil (or to be kinder, allowed it) in order to give humanity the freedom to choose does not explain why God made it much easier for some to choose good than others. Why some are given an easier context (loving parents) to choose good in than others (severely emotionally deprived children) is never adequately addressed. This is an especially poignant issue in Christianity because you only have one chance to do it right.

"Calvinists pushed the argument further in asking if God knew beforehand the choices one would make. For them, to say no would put a limit on the power and knowledge of God. So, if God knew beforehand what choice one would make, it had to have been predetermined. The problem here was why so many people were predetermined to be bad. The Calvinist solution was to emphasize that mankind is essentially evil (original sin) and could only be saved by the grace of God. What was not properly addressed is why some received grace and some did not; and why God would construct a whole species that was born initially evil, and concern himself with whom to save and not to. Being omniscient, there could not even be any mystery in watching the morality play unfold, for God must have known from the get-go who were the few elect he was going to save, and that he was creating a large majority to be damned eternally. this seems like an odd pastime for a God who is all good. From a human standpoint, this does not seem like a very nice thing to do."

The above is from the Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, copyright 1993 by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, published by Frog, Ltd. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

I wholeheartedly agree with what the authors of The Guru Papers have to say. I came to the same conclusion independently, before reading their book, by the use of logic.

The New Socialists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a Trick Question

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

The Myth of Rights: Property Taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Answer to "somewhere joe"

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

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

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

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

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

How Healthy Are Polyunsaturated Fats?

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

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

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

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

Question 10 from my 52 Perverse Questions

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

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

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

Nuremberg Nazis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To "somewhere joe"

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

The Danger of an "Incurious Attitude"

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

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

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

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

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

somewhere joe's palindrome

Oh, cameras are macho. Thanks "joe".

Religion: The Great Equalizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palindrome

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

A Short Discussion About Incest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fly the Friendly Skies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we really own ourselves?

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

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

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

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

Sex, Alcohol, and Killing or being Killed

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

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

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

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

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

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