"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 2008, 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 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 (as did the Church). 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.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
News Flash: The Globe is Warming!
Yes, there is hard evidence of global warming . . . and even harder evidence that it is not related to humans. Hard to believe? Not really. Read on.
On May 8, 2007, World Climate Report (“the Web’s longest-Running Climate Change Blog") filed an article about global warming . . . on the planet Neptune!
It seems that “Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004.”
Total solar irradiance (the amount of light—and, therefore, energy—produced by the sun) has been going up since 1920. If there is a direct correlation between greater solar irradiance and the warming of Neptune, couldn’t the Sun’s output also be a factor in the global warming on Earth? And one other thing the article mentioned—“The news from Neptune [came] to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.” (Emphasis added.)
If you are interested in reading the full article, go to: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/.
Another site that might interest a serious student of the cause of global warming is The Deep Blue Sea, by John Daly, at: http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm.
On May 8, 2007, World Climate Report (“the Web’s longest-Running Climate Change Blog") filed an article about global warming . . . on the planet Neptune!
It seems that “Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004.”
Total solar irradiance (the amount of light—and, therefore, energy—produced by the sun) has been going up since 1920. If there is a direct correlation between greater solar irradiance and the warming of Neptune, couldn’t the Sun’s output also be a factor in the global warming on Earth? And one other thing the article mentioned—“The news from Neptune [came] to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.” (Emphasis added.)
If you are interested in reading the full article, go to: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/.
Another site that might interest a serious student of the cause of global warming is The Deep Blue Sea, by John Daly, at: http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Crime Versus Sin: The Lesson for Today
Crimes fall into the secular realm of social behavior. Sins are purely religious in origin. However, some sins are crimes also.
Generally speaking, sins that are not crimes are behaviors that some people find to be immoral and wrong, but which do not violate the rights of others, nor do they immediately and directly threaten the rights of others. Crimes, from a purely secular point of view, are those behaviors that violate or threaten to violate the rights of others. While some crimes are also considered to be sins by the religious among us--murder, rape, child molesting, stealing, etc.--they fall squarely into the secular sphere of social responsibility since they are rights-violating behaviors.
Making rights-violating behavior unlawful is a social good in a truly free and liberty-loving society. Making sins unlawful (and we have many such sin-laws) is, in itself, criminal in nature and a social harm in a society that purports to uphold individual liberty and inalienable rights. Such sin-laws, or morality laws, violate the rights of otherwise honest, peaceful, adults. And I do stress adults here. Minors, even those close to adulthood, do not have full adult rights to the use and control of their own bodies and minds. This has been true throughout all of time from the most primitive to the most sophisticated of societies.
If you find a person's behavior to be immoral and wrong, but it does not violate or threaten to violate the rights of others, that behavior is sinful, but it is not a crime. It should be the right of that adult to so behave if we actually do have inalienable rights.
To support the morality laws that violate the rights of otherwise honest and peaceful citizens is to be part of a great criminal conspiracy that is only justified by the evil associated with a purist's notion of democracy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "[a] democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." An example of a pure democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
The Founding Fathers of this once great nation gave us a limited democratic republic. We have managed to destroy it and now have a multitude of local, state, and national laws that actually violate rights rather than protect them. This has been done in the name of protecting the moral standards of the citizens. However, that is rather like making all people subject to the religious laws of a particular church, even though many of those forced to obey those laws do not belong to that church nor support its dogma. That seems, logically, to be a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
No one forces a person to gamble, to surf the "web" for porn, to drink, or to use some other mind altering substances, among other things. Of course, you should expect the arrest and punishment of anyone who targets your minor children for those behaviors. However, once your minor children are no longer minors, once they are adults, they have the right, just like you, to decide for themselves, whether for good or bad, what behaviors they will accept and participate in. If that is not true then there is no such thing as true personal liberty and inalienable rights.
If you were a good parent, one who taught by example how to live a proper moral life, then even if your young adult children stray for a while they will, more likely than not, return to the beliefs you instilled in them when they were young. Besides, all the religious beliefs made into secular laws, to be enforced by the secular government, will not and does not stop people from behaving in ways that others believe to be immoral. Further, it is not the secular government's legitimate job, by passing and enforcing the sin laws, to force the religious and personal moral beliefs of some people on the "non-believing" population.
There is also the issue of hypocrisy. I will give you one cogent example of what I am talking about. Smoking marijuana is considered by some to be a sin. The mere use of marijuana--by an adult--violates no one's rights. Many religious people and groups condemn the use of marijuana by adults and condone the laws prohibiting this substance thereby making criminals of those who grow, sell, and use it. Smoking marijuana has been made a crime by proclamation: We believe marijuana use is immoral, therefore we have made it illegal. There is almost no real criminal behavior associated with the use of marijuana. What real criminal behavior that is associated with marijuana has been caused by the religious laws prohibiting its use. At the same time, many religious people condone the use of alcohol, yet the mere use of alcohol is associated with the majority of all violent crimes. That is not just my opinion. It has been proven in study after study.
Therefore, we have the obscene hypocrisy of religious people condemning the rights of honest, non-violent pot smokers while condoning the use of the known violence-causing drug alcohol. If these people—and among them are preachers, politicians, policemen, presidents, prosecutors, and judges—want to stop being hypocritical they need to pass laws prohibiting the use of alcohol. But of course that was tried once and was a disaster (as is the present war on drugs). Another alternative to ending their hypocrisy would be to repeal the religious-based laws that have nothing to do with real, rights-violating, criminal behavior. That would be the right and logical thing to do but not likely to happen, I admit.
The way the laws are now my neighbor believes that he or she has the right to dictate my personal moral behavior where such behavior does not harm, or immediately and directly threaten to harm, the persons or property of others. If my neighbor knows or suspects that I am growing or using marijuana, or using any of the other presently illegal drugs, all she or he has to do it pick up the phone and call the police. In today's anti-rightist environment, I would soon join the growing number of felons and ex-felons, estimated to be in the millions today, yet I would have violated no one's rights. How can that be legal under a secular government?
Let the churches preach against religiously immoral behavior if they want to, but let God punish the transgressors in God's own time. Let the secular authorities only punish people for any purely secular, rights-violating behavior that they may be guilty of. The meaning of to govern is to control. How much control by the secular authorities does a person need if his or her behavior is non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, done alone or with other consenting adults; that does not physically harm other people or their property or is not a direct and immediate threat to other people or their property; that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance? Such behavior is truly the essence of our inalienable rights under a truly secular government.
Generally speaking, sins that are not crimes are behaviors that some people find to be immoral and wrong, but which do not violate the rights of others, nor do they immediately and directly threaten the rights of others. Crimes, from a purely secular point of view, are those behaviors that violate or threaten to violate the rights of others. While some crimes are also considered to be sins by the religious among us--murder, rape, child molesting, stealing, etc.--they fall squarely into the secular sphere of social responsibility since they are rights-violating behaviors.
Making rights-violating behavior unlawful is a social good in a truly free and liberty-loving society. Making sins unlawful (and we have many such sin-laws) is, in itself, criminal in nature and a social harm in a society that purports to uphold individual liberty and inalienable rights. Such sin-laws, or morality laws, violate the rights of otherwise honest, peaceful, adults. And I do stress adults here. Minors, even those close to adulthood, do not have full adult rights to the use and control of their own bodies and minds. This has been true throughout all of time from the most primitive to the most sophisticated of societies.
If you find a person's behavior to be immoral and wrong, but it does not violate or threaten to violate the rights of others, that behavior is sinful, but it is not a crime. It should be the right of that adult to so behave if we actually do have inalienable rights.
To support the morality laws that violate the rights of otherwise honest and peaceful citizens is to be part of a great criminal conspiracy that is only justified by the evil associated with a purist's notion of democracy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "[a] democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." An example of a pure democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
The Founding Fathers of this once great nation gave us a limited democratic republic. We have managed to destroy it and now have a multitude of local, state, and national laws that actually violate rights rather than protect them. This has been done in the name of protecting the moral standards of the citizens. However, that is rather like making all people subject to the religious laws of a particular church, even though many of those forced to obey those laws do not belong to that church nor support its dogma. That seems, logically, to be a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
No one forces a person to gamble, to surf the "web" for porn, to drink, or to use some other mind altering substances, among other things. Of course, you should expect the arrest and punishment of anyone who targets your minor children for those behaviors. However, once your minor children are no longer minors, once they are adults, they have the right, just like you, to decide for themselves, whether for good or bad, what behaviors they will accept and participate in. If that is not true then there is no such thing as true personal liberty and inalienable rights.
If you were a good parent, one who taught by example how to live a proper moral life, then even if your young adult children stray for a while they will, more likely than not, return to the beliefs you instilled in them when they were young. Besides, all the religious beliefs made into secular laws, to be enforced by the secular government, will not and does not stop people from behaving in ways that others believe to be immoral. Further, it is not the secular government's legitimate job, by passing and enforcing the sin laws, to force the religious and personal moral beliefs of some people on the "non-believing" population.
There is also the issue of hypocrisy. I will give you one cogent example of what I am talking about. Smoking marijuana is considered by some to be a sin. The mere use of marijuana--by an adult--violates no one's rights. Many religious people and groups condemn the use of marijuana by adults and condone the laws prohibiting this substance thereby making criminals of those who grow, sell, and use it. Smoking marijuana has been made a crime by proclamation: We believe marijuana use is immoral, therefore we have made it illegal. There is almost no real criminal behavior associated with the use of marijuana. What real criminal behavior that is associated with marijuana has been caused by the religious laws prohibiting its use. At the same time, many religious people condone the use of alcohol, yet the mere use of alcohol is associated with the majority of all violent crimes. That is not just my opinion. It has been proven in study after study.
Therefore, we have the obscene hypocrisy of religious people condemning the rights of honest, non-violent pot smokers while condoning the use of the known violence-causing drug alcohol. If these people—and among them are preachers, politicians, policemen, presidents, prosecutors, and judges—want to stop being hypocritical they need to pass laws prohibiting the use of alcohol. But of course that was tried once and was a disaster (as is the present war on drugs). Another alternative to ending their hypocrisy would be to repeal the religious-based laws that have nothing to do with real, rights-violating, criminal behavior. That would be the right and logical thing to do but not likely to happen, I admit.
The way the laws are now my neighbor believes that he or she has the right to dictate my personal moral behavior where such behavior does not harm, or immediately and directly threaten to harm, the persons or property of others. If my neighbor knows or suspects that I am growing or using marijuana, or using any of the other presently illegal drugs, all she or he has to do it pick up the phone and call the police. In today's anti-rightist environment, I would soon join the growing number of felons and ex-felons, estimated to be in the millions today, yet I would have violated no one's rights. How can that be legal under a secular government?
Let the churches preach against religiously immoral behavior if they want to, but let God punish the transgressors in God's own time. Let the secular authorities only punish people for any purely secular, rights-violating behavior that they may be guilty of. The meaning of to govern is to control. How much control by the secular authorities does a person need if his or her behavior is non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, done alone or with other consenting adults; that does not physically harm other people or their property or is not a direct and immediate threat to other people or their property; that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance? Such behavior is truly the essence of our inalienable rights under a truly secular government.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
"Heaven" and drug rehab
Today, Sunday, I had all my household chores done and nothing really to do. I had just finished a good book and had not started another. So, there I was "clicking" through the channels for worthwhile movie to watch. I had the "preview" window on so that I could check out actors and actresses (yes, I am old-fashioned: men are actors, women are actresses) and to try and get an inkling of what the movies might be about.
I came across a movie titled "Heaven." The "blurb" said it was about an Italian policeman who falls in love with a widow (played by Kate Blanchett) and tries to help her kill a drug dealer. Okay, I gave it a try.
The movie was in progress and I heard the heroine states something to the effect that she knew of 13-year-old children who had been through drug rehab.
My immediate thought was that if the "drugs" were legal to adults there would probably be a whole lot fewer 13-year-old who had access to them. "Drugs", of course, being any of the presently illegal ones.
My second thought was how many 13-year-olds, and teenagers in general, have been through rehab for the narcotic drug, alcohol?
At "Focus Adolescent Services"
I found out that, in the U.S.A. there are at least three million teens who are "out-and-out alcoholics"; that there are 5,000 deaths per year of people under 21 that are alcohol related; and that for people, age 15-24, the leading causes of death are alcohol-related auto accidents, homicides, and suicides.
I didn't finish watching the movie. I didn't find out if, somewhere in the movie, the protagonists imbibed in one alcoholic beverage or another...although they probably did. How many people do you know that don't drink alcoholic beverages? I wonder if the writer of the movie thought about alcohol and 13-year-olds and drug rehab, or if the writer just thought of the presently illegal drugs?
I don't believe in prohibition...of any drug. I believe that adults should be able to make up their own minds about drug use, including alcohol and tobacco (tobacco being the number one preventable death-causing substance). The so-called war on drugs wastes money, wastes lives, causes more problems that it solves, and violates the rights of otherwise honest adults from the free use of their bodies and their minds where such use does not violate the rights of others. (Most rights-violating behavior surrounding the presently illegal drugs is caused by the prohbition, not the mere use of the drugs.)
Having said that, I must say that I do believe that, due to the nature of the adolescent brain--both physically and emotionally--all addictive drugs, nicotine and alcohol included, should be prohibited to adolescents and that strong punishments should be provided for adults who provide those drugs to them.
Teenagers need to let their (basically) scrambled brains--striving to change from childhood to adulthood--to settle down and straighten out before they start scrambling their brains with drugs.
Drug rehab and 13-year-olds. Three million out-and-out teen alcoholics. When I went to a web site for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for teens--Students & Young Adults--there were "click-on" articles for all of the presently illegal drugs, but none for alcohol.
Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug. Presidents, politicians, prosecutors, policemen, and millions of people everywhere drink this dangerous and (to some) addictive drug. It's endemic in our society. Still, it is a drug...a narcotic drug. And it causes so much more harm than all the illegal ones as to boggle the mind. But mostly, we ignore that and focus, as did the movie, "Heaven", on illegal drugs. Why?
As I said above--and I am as sure of what I am saying as I am sure that I am alive right now--if we legalized the presently illegal drugs to adults, then it would be harder for minors to get them. Why? Why not as easy as alcohol?
First, it's easier today for minors to get illegal drugs than alcohol. Age is not a factor in buying an illegal product, only money is. Do your research. Second, all of the presently illegal drugs, except, possibly, marijuana, are not socially acceptable drugs in the general sense as is alcohol. Therefore, if those drugs could only be bought by adults showing valid ID, and the punishment for selling or providing those drugs to minors were severe, then it would be harder for minors to get them.
As Americans, generally speaking, we are hysterical about drugs. And yet not hysterical enough about alcohol, which many see as a rite of passage, but which the statistics show as an initiation into lifelong problems for millions of teenagers. We need to stop being hysterical, that is, emotional, and become more logical about the realities of drug use.
I came across a movie titled "Heaven." The "blurb" said it was about an Italian policeman who falls in love with a widow (played by Kate Blanchett) and tries to help her kill a drug dealer. Okay, I gave it a try.
The movie was in progress and I heard the heroine states something to the effect that she knew of 13-year-old children who had been through drug rehab.
My immediate thought was that if the "drugs" were legal to adults there would probably be a whole lot fewer 13-year-old who had access to them. "Drugs", of course, being any of the presently illegal ones.
My second thought was how many 13-year-olds, and teenagers in general, have been through rehab for the narcotic drug, alcohol?
At "Focus Adolescent Services"
I found out that, in the U.S.A. there are at least three million teens who are "out-and-out alcoholics"; that there are 5,000 deaths per year of people under 21 that are alcohol related; and that for people, age 15-24, the leading causes of death are alcohol-related auto accidents, homicides, and suicides.
I didn't finish watching the movie. I didn't find out if, somewhere in the movie, the protagonists imbibed in one alcoholic beverage or another...although they probably did. How many people do you know that don't drink alcoholic beverages? I wonder if the writer of the movie thought about alcohol and 13-year-olds and drug rehab, or if the writer just thought of the presently illegal drugs?
I don't believe in prohibition...of any drug. I believe that adults should be able to make up their own minds about drug use, including alcohol and tobacco (tobacco being the number one preventable death-causing substance). The so-called war on drugs wastes money, wastes lives, causes more problems that it solves, and violates the rights of otherwise honest adults from the free use of their bodies and their minds where such use does not violate the rights of others. (Most rights-violating behavior surrounding the presently illegal drugs is caused by the prohbition, not the mere use of the drugs.)
Having said that, I must say that I do believe that, due to the nature of the adolescent brain--both physically and emotionally--all addictive drugs, nicotine and alcohol included, should be prohibited to adolescents and that strong punishments should be provided for adults who provide those drugs to them.
Teenagers need to let their (basically) scrambled brains--striving to change from childhood to adulthood--to settle down and straighten out before they start scrambling their brains with drugs.
Drug rehab and 13-year-olds. Three million out-and-out teen alcoholics. When I went to a web site for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for teens--Students & Young Adults--there were "click-on" articles for all of the presently illegal drugs, but none for alcohol.
Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug. Presidents, politicians, prosecutors, policemen, and millions of people everywhere drink this dangerous and (to some) addictive drug. It's endemic in our society. Still, it is a drug...a narcotic drug. And it causes so much more harm than all the illegal ones as to boggle the mind. But mostly, we ignore that and focus, as did the movie, "Heaven", on illegal drugs. Why?
As I said above--and I am as sure of what I am saying as I am sure that I am alive right now--if we legalized the presently illegal drugs to adults, then it would be harder for minors to get them. Why? Why not as easy as alcohol?
First, it's easier today for minors to get illegal drugs than alcohol. Age is not a factor in buying an illegal product, only money is. Do your research. Second, all of the presently illegal drugs, except, possibly, marijuana, are not socially acceptable drugs in the general sense as is alcohol. Therefore, if those drugs could only be bought by adults showing valid ID, and the punishment for selling or providing those drugs to minors were severe, then it would be harder for minors to get them.
As Americans, generally speaking, we are hysterical about drugs. And yet not hysterical enough about alcohol, which many see as a rite of passage, but which the statistics show as an initiation into lifelong problems for millions of teenagers. We need to stop being hysterical, that is, emotional, and become more logical about the realities of drug use.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thoughts on California's Proposition 8
Proposition 8 is an attempt to change the California Constitution so that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman only. That would invalidate an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing marriage between same sex couples.
The people who want Proposition 8 to pass are, basically, people who call themselves Christians. They see marriage from a (limited) Biblical point of view as only between a man and a woman. (I discuss why Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible in my article, "Diametrically Opposed," two posts below.)
Contrary to the generally held Christian viewpoint, that homosexuality is a choice, I believe, due to the literature that I have read on the subject and from talking to homosexuals that I have known, that homosexuality is not a choice. And, from the historical record going back at least two or three thousand years, homosexuality is not new.
But what is the purpose of marriage? Why must it be sanctioned by the "state"? And, will allowing homosexual marriages to be legally binding negatively affect people who are opposed to it, for whatever reason?
Taking that last question first, I would have to say that the answer is, more likely than not, yes. There are always unseen consequences to actions and laws. If a church or private school, among other scenarios, will not teach or recognize same sex marriages, they could be sued for civil rights violations.
America, if nothing else, is a sue-happy nation. We have 5% of the world's population and 75% of the lawyers . . . who will quite happily attempt to prove a legal wrong has taken place in order to take money from one person's pocket and line their own.
What is the purpose of marriage? Originally, it was to unite familes and strengthen bonds between clans, tribes, or nations; to produce bloodlines for inheritance purposes; and to tell the community and the world at large that a certain man was the owner and protector of both his wife and children, as well as being responsible for them and their actions. (Well, that's the short and practical version. It's really a bit more complicated than that.) Homosexuality had nothing to do with it as no children could be born out of a same sex marriage, and children were crucial to the original purposes of marriage.
As for marriages being "legalized" by the "state", that only came into being in the late modern times. Now with social security, insurance benefits, and others modern complications to our financial lives, marriage licenses are needed to prove eligibility for various financial benefits and rewards.
Therefore, I can only surmise that the only reason that the homosexual community wants to have their marriages legally recognized is for financial purposes. If that isn't the case, then there is no reason why a same sex couple couldn't have a private marriage ceremony, with friends and family in attendance to witness their vows and intentions.
The proponents of Proposition 8 say that same sex couples have the option of civil unions that would protect them in the areas I mentioned above. I haven't researched that but, if true, then I am on the side of the Proposition 8 proponents, because the law of unintended consequences will cause many prolems for them in the future.
If that is not true, if civil unions don't give the same or equal benefits to same sex couples, then that should be remedied, legally. A homosexual couple can love each other just as much and be devoted to each other just as much as a hetrosexual couple. They are, after all, humans too.
The people who want Proposition 8 to pass are, basically, people who call themselves Christians. They see marriage from a (limited) Biblical point of view as only between a man and a woman. (I discuss why Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible in my article, "Diametrically Opposed," two posts below.)
Contrary to the generally held Christian viewpoint, that homosexuality is a choice, I believe, due to the literature that I have read on the subject and from talking to homosexuals that I have known, that homosexuality is not a choice. And, from the historical record going back at least two or three thousand years, homosexuality is not new.
But what is the purpose of marriage? Why must it be sanctioned by the "state"? And, will allowing homosexual marriages to be legally binding negatively affect people who are opposed to it, for whatever reason?
Taking that last question first, I would have to say that the answer is, more likely than not, yes. There are always unseen consequences to actions and laws. If a church or private school, among other scenarios, will not teach or recognize same sex marriages, they could be sued for civil rights violations.
America, if nothing else, is a sue-happy nation. We have 5% of the world's population and 75% of the lawyers . . . who will quite happily attempt to prove a legal wrong has taken place in order to take money from one person's pocket and line their own.
What is the purpose of marriage? Originally, it was to unite familes and strengthen bonds between clans, tribes, or nations; to produce bloodlines for inheritance purposes; and to tell the community and the world at large that a certain man was the owner and protector of both his wife and children, as well as being responsible for them and their actions. (Well, that's the short and practical version. It's really a bit more complicated than that.) Homosexuality had nothing to do with it as no children could be born out of a same sex marriage, and children were crucial to the original purposes of marriage.
As for marriages being "legalized" by the "state", that only came into being in the late modern times. Now with social security, insurance benefits, and others modern complications to our financial lives, marriage licenses are needed to prove eligibility for various financial benefits and rewards.
Therefore, I can only surmise that the only reason that the homosexual community wants to have their marriages legally recognized is for financial purposes. If that isn't the case, then there is no reason why a same sex couple couldn't have a private marriage ceremony, with friends and family in attendance to witness their vows and intentions.
The proponents of Proposition 8 say that same sex couples have the option of civil unions that would protect them in the areas I mentioned above. I haven't researched that but, if true, then I am on the side of the Proposition 8 proponents, because the law of unintended consequences will cause many prolems for them in the future.
If that is not true, if civil unions don't give the same or equal benefits to same sex couples, then that should be remedied, legally. A homosexual couple can love each other just as much and be devoted to each other just as much as a hetrosexual couple. They are, after all, humans too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
EARLY MORNING REFLECTIONS OF YOU
(This is a variation of my "Beginning Day" poem)
Early morning sunlight streams up
Pink and rosy to paint the bottoms
Of torn and ragged bits of clouds.
Old man crow is winging slowly overhead.
He croaks his harsh and guttural
Greeting to the new-come day.
The wind lightly sweeps through the trees
As the gathering light silently
Pushes back the soft darkness.
I hear the sounds of birds awakening.
I see the colors and textures of the world
Emerging slowly all about me.
I think of you, my love, and I am filled
As a cup that is filled to overflowing.
Early morning sunlight streams up
Pink and rosy to paint the bottoms
Of torn and ragged bits of clouds.
Old man crow is winging slowly overhead.
He croaks his harsh and guttural
Greeting to the new-come day.
The wind lightly sweeps through the trees
As the gathering light silently
Pushes back the soft darkness.
I hear the sounds of birds awakening.
I see the colors and textures of the world
Emerging slowly all about me.
I think of you, my love, and I am filled
As a cup that is filled to overflowing.
Diametrically Opposed: Why Christianity and Homosexuality Can't Mix
Can religion and logical thinking exist together? Obviously not...for many reasons. Here is but one.
I was watching a news program a while back in which a homosexual man was being interviewed. (I am not opposed to homosexuality. I do not believe that it is unnatural or that it makes a person bad or, as the U.S. military believes, that being a homosexual makes a person unfit or unreliable. Myself, I am heterosexual.) The man being interviewed, as the narrator said, studied his Bible and prayed to (the Christian) God on a regular basis because he was homosexual... without a doubt. He prayed for years that God would intervene and make him a heterosexual. It didn't happen. Then the man had his own little epiphany: Jesus loves him anyway and he could still be a Christian.
What's wrong with that man's thinking? It is anything but logical. As science and medicine has discovered, being homosexual, at least for the vast majority of men and women who are, is not a choice. They are born that way. That, of course, has not been proven. But many studies, with both humans and animals, show a physiological difference in brain structure or chemistry between heterosexuals and homosexuals. See, for instance the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality.
Let me put this another way: Extremely few, if any, homosexuals were adult or near-adult heterosexuals then, one day, decided to become homosexuals. Therefore, by genetics, in the uterus, or in early childhood development--beyond the control of the child--some people become homosexuals. This seems to be a natural process, again, beyond the control of the person.
The Christians' creator-god quite clearly condemns homosexual activity in the Bible. Jesus Christ is the supposed human-born son of that creator-god and nowhere did Jesus say that he came to change the old laws of the Hebrews. In fact, he even stated that no biblical law would be changed. (Matthew 5:18.) Therefore, the Old Testament law banning homosexual activity (among many other behaviors common today), upon pain of death, is a Christian principle. It's the same God, Jesus is the son of that God (as well as being that God, too), and the law was not changed.
Based on these "Christian facts", a homosexual is a sinner and cannot, without repenting and giving up his or her sinful ways, go to Heaven. But, based on science, it is more likely than not that homosexuals do not have a choice in being homosexual. Then, by logical extension of the creator-god beliefs, we can see that God made homosexuals the way they are by allowing them to be born as homosexuals; knowing that they were going to be homosexuals, as well as knowing that no matter how hard they prayed to "HIM" to be "normal", they would remain homosexuals. Therefore, we have the irrational situation that a creator-god creates a world where it knows that homosexuals will be born...and condemns them to death and everlasting perdition. Yeah, I like that...a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who happens to be illogical and not very nice.
To believe in the Christian dogma and yet be an unrepentant and unchanged homosexual are diametrical opposites. That is, it is illogical. But then, I have found over the years that many, if not most, people allow their logical self to be controlled by their emotional self. That's one reason why so many people are screwed up, why the world is so screwed up. And, at the bottom of all this screwing up you will almost always find religion...emotion versus logic.
I was watching a news program a while back in which a homosexual man was being interviewed. (I am not opposed to homosexuality. I do not believe that it is unnatural or that it makes a person bad or, as the U.S. military believes, that being a homosexual makes a person unfit or unreliable. Myself, I am heterosexual.) The man being interviewed, as the narrator said, studied his Bible and prayed to (the Christian) God on a regular basis because he was homosexual... without a doubt. He prayed for years that God would intervene and make him a heterosexual. It didn't happen. Then the man had his own little epiphany: Jesus loves him anyway and he could still be a Christian.
What's wrong with that man's thinking? It is anything but logical. As science and medicine has discovered, being homosexual, at least for the vast majority of men and women who are, is not a choice. They are born that way. That, of course, has not been proven. But many studies, with both humans and animals, show a physiological difference in brain structure or chemistry between heterosexuals and homosexuals. See, for instance the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality.
Let me put this another way: Extremely few, if any, homosexuals were adult or near-adult heterosexuals then, one day, decided to become homosexuals. Therefore, by genetics, in the uterus, or in early childhood development--beyond the control of the child--some people become homosexuals. This seems to be a natural process, again, beyond the control of the person.
The Christians' creator-god quite clearly condemns homosexual activity in the Bible. Jesus Christ is the supposed human-born son of that creator-god and nowhere did Jesus say that he came to change the old laws of the Hebrews. In fact, he even stated that no biblical law would be changed. (Matthew 5:18.) Therefore, the Old Testament law banning homosexual activity (among many other behaviors common today), upon pain of death, is a Christian principle. It's the same God, Jesus is the son of that God (as well as being that God, too), and the law was not changed.
Based on these "Christian facts", a homosexual is a sinner and cannot, without repenting and giving up his or her sinful ways, go to Heaven. But, based on science, it is more likely than not that homosexuals do not have a choice in being homosexual. Then, by logical extension of the creator-god beliefs, we can see that God made homosexuals the way they are by allowing them to be born as homosexuals; knowing that they were going to be homosexuals, as well as knowing that no matter how hard they prayed to "HIM" to be "normal", they would remain homosexuals. Therefore, we have the irrational situation that a creator-god creates a world where it knows that homosexuals will be born...and condemns them to death and everlasting perdition. Yeah, I like that...a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who happens to be illogical and not very nice.
To believe in the Christian dogma and yet be an unrepentant and unchanged homosexual are diametrical opposites. That is, it is illogical. But then, I have found over the years that many, if not most, people allow their logical self to be controlled by their emotional self. That's one reason why so many people are screwed up, why the world is so screwed up. And, at the bottom of all this screwing up you will almost always find religion...emotion versus logic.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Narco News
This is old stuff, but I just found out about it recently and have finally gotten around to writing something about it.
It has been stated in no uncertain terms that the United States is the biggest money laundering nation in the world--especially in relation to drug money--and that Wall Street is the place where the action happens. The same person who so claimed, stated that people high up in the government for several Presidential administrations have know about this and are or may be complicit with this money laundering.
This could be a reason why the so-called war on drugs will never be won...those in power don't want it to be...notwithstanding the fact that the war on drugs is a direct violation of the inalienable rights of adult citizens to the full and complete ownership and use of their bodies and minds if they are not violating the rights of others.
In any case, you can go to the first URL that I list below, then follow up to the next two from there, or click on each one separately, as you wish. These are must read articles if you want to know how evil the prohibition of the presently illegal drugs really is.
www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.html
www.narconews.com/narcodollars2
.html
www.narconews.com/narcodollars3
.html
I wonder how the recent losses on Wall Street will affect the drug money invested there. Probably not nearly as much as legitimate investments. The only way to make money is to buy low and sell high. In the illegitimate drug world, what costs a dollar to produce can be sold for thirty, forty, fifty dollars or more; the epitome of buying low and selling high. The illegitimate drug producers can afford to take large losses and still make tons of money.
It has been stated in no uncertain terms that the United States is the biggest money laundering nation in the world--especially in relation to drug money--and that Wall Street is the place where the action happens. The same person who so claimed, stated that people high up in the government for several Presidential administrations have know about this and are or may be complicit with this money laundering.
This could be a reason why the so-called war on drugs will never be won...those in power don't want it to be...notwithstanding the fact that the war on drugs is a direct violation of the inalienable rights of adult citizens to the full and complete ownership and use of their bodies and minds if they are not violating the rights of others.
In any case, you can go to the first URL that I list below, then follow up to the next two from there, or click on each one separately, as you wish. These are must read articles if you want to know how evil the prohibition of the presently illegal drugs really is.
www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.html
www.narconews.com/narcodollars2
.html
www.narconews.com/narcodollars3
.html
I wonder how the recent losses on Wall Street will affect the drug money invested there. Probably not nearly as much as legitimate investments. The only way to make money is to buy low and sell high. In the illegitimate drug world, what costs a dollar to produce can be sold for thirty, forty, fifty dollars or more; the epitome of buying low and selling high. The illegitimate drug producers can afford to take large losses and still make tons of money.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
BEGINNING DAY
Lightly the wind sweeps through the trees.
Paloverde and mesquite gently dancing in the breeze.
Quietly the gathering light of day
Pushes back the soft darkness.
Palest lavender, the early dawn is lifting
The veil of night so silently.
I think . . . . . . . nothing.
I hear . . . sounds of morning . . . awakening birds
And the slightly sighing breeze.
I see . . . inchoate colors and textures
Emerging all about me.
Old man crow, winging slowly overhead,
Croaks his harsh and guttural greeting to the new-come day.
I hear.
I see.
I take it as a greeting to me.
Another day in my prison is beginning.
I sit wrapped warmly in a blanket
Against the desert winter cold.
I sit wrapped in the tranquility of early morning.
But, in reality . . .
I sit naked, exposed, and oh so lonely in my soul.
Paloverde and mesquite gently dancing in the breeze.
Quietly the gathering light of day
Pushes back the soft darkness.
Palest lavender, the early dawn is lifting
The veil of night so silently.
I think . . . . . . . nothing.
I hear . . . sounds of morning . . . awakening birds
And the slightly sighing breeze.
I see . . . inchoate colors and textures
Emerging all about me.
Old man crow, winging slowly overhead,
Croaks his harsh and guttural greeting to the new-come day.
I hear.
I see.
I take it as a greeting to me.
Another day in my prison is beginning.
I sit wrapped warmly in a blanket
Against the desert winter cold.
I sit wrapped in the tranquility of early morning.
But, in reality . . .
I sit naked, exposed, and oh so lonely in my soul.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Why I Can’t Own a Liquor Store
Supposedly, recreational drugs other than alcohol and tobacco are so bad, dangerous, addictive, and such society wreckers that the government has to protect adults from their use and abuse. Even though you may be an honest, self-supporting, hard-working adult, you are not competent to decide if you want to use certain chemical substances because they are so dangerous that you won’t be able to control yourself and will become: (A) addicted, (B) a murderer, (C) brain dead, (D) a thief , (E) all of the above.
Sounds like a good reason to ban certain drugs, right?. There is just one little problem with the government’s scenario. The true narcotic drug, alcohol, is addictive. Hard core alcoholics (drug addicts) are brain dead, more or less. Alcohol use is related to over 40% of all murders, among other crimes. The use of alcohol is responsible for five times more deaths than all the illegal drugs. Tobacco is responsible for 25 times more deaths.
If you go to Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org and click on the simulated book cover in the upper left corner, that will take you to a page where you can find facts about drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Then , “click” on “Causes of Death in the United States”.
Illegal drugs cause about 17,000 deaths per year. Aspirin and other such drugs cause about 7,600. Prescription drug use (in hospitals) cause 32,000, maybe as many as 106,000. Marijuana use causes no deaths. However, alcohol use causes 85,000 such deaths and tobacco 435,000.
Then, if you go back and “click” on “Alcohol” you can find that nearly 40% of all convicted prisoners were using alcohol at the time of committing their crime (paragraph 3). About 60% of jail inmates had been drinking regularly in the year previous to their crimes (paragraph 4). For more than 40% of convicted murderers alcohol played a part in the murders they committed (paragraph 6). Finally, under “Crime”, at paragraph 15, we find that, overall, the mere use of alcohol causes more violent crimes than all the illegal drugs.
So this is why I can’t own a liquor store, or any store that sells alcohol or tobacco. If the government’s rationale for banning the presently illegal drugs is correct—that they are addictive, dangerous, deadly, and cause crime and therefore must be prohibited—then wouldn’t that rationale hold true for the drugs alcohol and tobacco also? If it is wrong to sell any of the presently illegal drugs then it must be more wrong to sell alcohol and tobacco because of the far greater harm those two drugs cause to individuals and society.
We don’t arrest people for drinking. They are arrested only if their behavior violates or threatens to violate the rights of others. Why don’t we apply that same standard to all the “recreational” drugs? Don’t we, as adults, have the right to the use (or abuse) of our bodies as we want, just so long as we don’t violate the rights of others? Isn’t that what the concept of inalienable rights is all about?
Besides, re-legalizing drugs would put violent drug cartels and street gangs out of business, and severely restrict the money flow to global terrorists. Such a policy would also make it much more difficult for minors to buy those drugs. Then and only then could I own a liquor store . . . that is, if I had been so foolish as to have believed the government’s irrational, hypocritical, and rights-violating propaganda to begin with.
Sounds like a good reason to ban certain drugs, right?. There is just one little problem with the government’s scenario. The true narcotic drug, alcohol, is addictive. Hard core alcoholics (drug addicts) are brain dead, more or less. Alcohol use is related to over 40% of all murders, among other crimes. The use of alcohol is responsible for five times more deaths than all the illegal drugs. Tobacco is responsible for 25 times more deaths.
If you go to Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org and click on the simulated book cover in the upper left corner, that will take you to a page where you can find facts about drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Then , “click” on “Causes of Death in the United States”.
Illegal drugs cause about 17,000 deaths per year. Aspirin and other such drugs cause about 7,600. Prescription drug use (in hospitals) cause 32,000, maybe as many as 106,000. Marijuana use causes no deaths. However, alcohol use causes 85,000 such deaths and tobacco 435,000.
Then, if you go back and “click” on “Alcohol” you can find that nearly 40% of all convicted prisoners were using alcohol at the time of committing their crime (paragraph 3). About 60% of jail inmates had been drinking regularly in the year previous to their crimes (paragraph 4). For more than 40% of convicted murderers alcohol played a part in the murders they committed (paragraph 6). Finally, under “Crime”, at paragraph 15, we find that, overall, the mere use of alcohol causes more violent crimes than all the illegal drugs.
So this is why I can’t own a liquor store, or any store that sells alcohol or tobacco. If the government’s rationale for banning the presently illegal drugs is correct—that they are addictive, dangerous, deadly, and cause crime and therefore must be prohibited—then wouldn’t that rationale hold true for the drugs alcohol and tobacco also? If it is wrong to sell any of the presently illegal drugs then it must be more wrong to sell alcohol and tobacco because of the far greater harm those two drugs cause to individuals and society.
We don’t arrest people for drinking. They are arrested only if their behavior violates or threatens to violate the rights of others. Why don’t we apply that same standard to all the “recreational” drugs? Don’t we, as adults, have the right to the use (or abuse) of our bodies as we want, just so long as we don’t violate the rights of others? Isn’t that what the concept of inalienable rights is all about?
Besides, re-legalizing drugs would put violent drug cartels and street gangs out of business, and severely restrict the money flow to global terrorists. Such a policy would also make it much more difficult for minors to buy those drugs. Then and only then could I own a liquor store . . . that is, if I had been so foolish as to have believed the government’s irrational, hypocritical, and rights-violating propaganda to begin with.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
THE GOD SNOT THEORY OF LIFE
One day God was out walking in the void. He was experimenting with a new idea He had: light. It's rather dark in the void so God decided to make light.
First, He put it below Him. But He didn't like that effect. Oh, it would have been good for a scary monster effect...but at the time there were no scary monsters, or people, so He moved the light behind Him. He didn't like that either. It cast His shadow out in front of Him...and God has a very big shadow. Then He moved it to His right side, but wasn't happy with the results. A light always shining on the right side of Him was rather irritating. He didn't move it to the left side. He figured He wouldn't like it any better there than He had on the right side. Next, He moved the light in front of Him. But then it shone right into His eyes. That wouldn't do. Finally, He moved the light above Him. Ah! Now that was good. He could see all around in the void without shadows, or light in His eyes, or constantly on one side or the other. He liked it above, so He left it there.
As God was standing there looking up, He got a strange sensation in His nose. You know how, sometimes, it makes you want to sneeze when you look up at a bright light, or into the bright sky? Well, that is what happened to God...and God had never sneezed before, or He would have done something about it.
In any case, God sneezed. Oh my, what a sneeze that was! Billions and billions of tiny God-particles of mucus, moisture, and who knows what else went flying out into the void. Each particle contained a bit of God's DNA, of course. God's sneeze also shattered the light into billions and billions of tiny pieces. They, too, went spinning out into the void. God saw all the tiny points of lights in the void and thought it was very pretty and that it was good. He called it cosmos (God only spoke Greek in those days). God then turned around and walked back to his house (yes, the house of God) and went inside, closing the door behind Him. He went to contemplate some more, maybe come up with a new idea, like He had with light.
In the meantime, all the billions and billions of particles were now frozen balls of stuff...because the void is very cold...which, of course, doesn't bother God in the least. But slowly, over time (and one day of God's time is one-hundred million of our years), the bits of shattered light, which were bigger and heavier than the bits of God snot, attracted various bits of the God snot to themselves, which, due to gravity (another one of God's unique ideas) began orbiting the bits of light and, thus, solar systems came into being. The bits of God snot that were too close to the bits of light either vaporized or dried out. The ones too far away remained balls of ice. But the ones, like our Earth, that were at just the right distance from its bit of light, were neither too hot nor too cold. And God’s DNA, embedded in the God-Snot, began to grow, divide, and evolve. The rest is history.
First, He put it below Him. But He didn't like that effect. Oh, it would have been good for a scary monster effect...but at the time there were no scary monsters, or people, so He moved the light behind Him. He didn't like that either. It cast His shadow out in front of Him...and God has a very big shadow. Then He moved it to His right side, but wasn't happy with the results. A light always shining on the right side of Him was rather irritating. He didn't move it to the left side. He figured He wouldn't like it any better there than He had on the right side. Next, He moved the light in front of Him. But then it shone right into His eyes. That wouldn't do. Finally, He moved the light above Him. Ah! Now that was good. He could see all around in the void without shadows, or light in His eyes, or constantly on one side or the other. He liked it above, so He left it there.
As God was standing there looking up, He got a strange sensation in His nose. You know how, sometimes, it makes you want to sneeze when you look up at a bright light, or into the bright sky? Well, that is what happened to God...and God had never sneezed before, or He would have done something about it.
In any case, God sneezed. Oh my, what a sneeze that was! Billions and billions of tiny God-particles of mucus, moisture, and who knows what else went flying out into the void. Each particle contained a bit of God's DNA, of course. God's sneeze also shattered the light into billions and billions of tiny pieces. They, too, went spinning out into the void. God saw all the tiny points of lights in the void and thought it was very pretty and that it was good. He called it cosmos (God only spoke Greek in those days). God then turned around and walked back to his house (yes, the house of God) and went inside, closing the door behind Him. He went to contemplate some more, maybe come up with a new idea, like He had with light.
In the meantime, all the billions and billions of particles were now frozen balls of stuff...because the void is very cold...which, of course, doesn't bother God in the least. But slowly, over time (and one day of God's time is one-hundred million of our years), the bits of shattered light, which were bigger and heavier than the bits of God snot, attracted various bits of the God snot to themselves, which, due to gravity (another one of God's unique ideas) began orbiting the bits of light and, thus, solar systems came into being. The bits of God snot that were too close to the bits of light either vaporized or dried out. The ones too far away remained balls of ice. But the ones, like our Earth, that were at just the right distance from its bit of light, were neither too hot nor too cold. And God’s DNA, embedded in the God-Snot, began to grow, divide, and evolve. The rest is history.
Monday, September 15, 2008
"Is Proven" and Eating Healthy"?
I have a gripe—actually, two of them—about what I perceive to be abuses of the English language. Several times in commercials for one pharmaceutical product or another I have heard the same phrase: This product is proven to be clinically effective. My other gripe is about a phrase in common usage regarding one’s diet: I eat healthy.
My first gripe has to do with mixing verb tenses improperly. The word is happens to be the present tense (third person) of the verb to be. Proven is a past tense (past participle) of the verb to prove. Is describes a state of being in the present—right now. Proven describes what has happened in the past. From what I learned in school about English, and from what I have looked up on line to verify what I had learned, the sentence should be written: This product has been proven to be clinically effective. One could also say: There is clinical proof as to the effectiveness of this product. The first sentence tells us that, in the past, the drug was tested and shown to work as expected and promoted. The second sentence tells us that the drug company has proof—records, documents—on hand showing that the drug does what it is supposed to do.
I did a little searching and at www.learnersdictionary.com/langhelp/usage.htm, a Merriam-Webster site. I found “Common Word Usage Problems,” and “clicked” on proven (proved is equally correct). There, I saw an example that fit perfectly with my theory of proper grammar: “(‘a drug that has been proved [proven] effective’).” (Emphasis added.)
I am sure that the ads of which I am complaining cost more money to make and televise than I make in a year’s time . . . maybe even two or three years. And yet, “it is proven” is repeated time and again and the listening public hears the incorrect grammar, believing it to be correct. Could this grammar error be driven by ignorance?
Do I protest too much? I don’t think so. Even though the English language is more than a bit complicated, I believe it is important to keep the language intact for as long as possible. Change will come, of course. And that’s all right. But I am talking about basic grammar here, not some new, catchy word or phrase. I am talking about some very rich companies. It seems to me that they could have gotten it right.
My second gripe is with the now common sentence regarding one’s diet: I eat healthy. The word healthy is an adjective. Adjectives describe or modify nouns or pronouns. In the sentence I eat healthy, the adjective healthy modifies nothing. To say that you eat healthy is like saying that you eat eggs, or apples, or some other thing. It is using the word healthy as a noun. You can eat a healthy diet—a diet that is healthy for you. You can eat healthily—in a manner that is healthy for you. But you can’t eat healthy unless you can describe the taste, smell, size, texture, and so forth of the thing that you are eating.
Will my gripes (okay, the rantings of a curmudgeon) make any difference? Probably not. Most people are too busy with their own problems to care about a little deviation in proper grammar usage of the English language . . . but I feel better.
My first gripe has to do with mixing verb tenses improperly. The word is happens to be the present tense (third person) of the verb to be. Proven is a past tense (past participle) of the verb to prove. Is describes a state of being in the present—right now. Proven describes what has happened in the past. From what I learned in school about English, and from what I have looked up on line to verify what I had learned, the sentence should be written: This product has been proven to be clinically effective. One could also say: There is clinical proof as to the effectiveness of this product. The first sentence tells us that, in the past, the drug was tested and shown to work as expected and promoted. The second sentence tells us that the drug company has proof—records, documents—on hand showing that the drug does what it is supposed to do.
I did a little searching and at www.learnersdictionary.com/langhelp/usage.htm, a Merriam-Webster site. I found “Common Word Usage Problems,” and “clicked” on proven (proved is equally correct). There, I saw an example that fit perfectly with my theory of proper grammar: “(‘a drug that has been proved [proven] effective’).” (Emphasis added.)
I am sure that the ads of which I am complaining cost more money to make and televise than I make in a year’s time . . . maybe even two or three years. And yet, “it is proven” is repeated time and again and the listening public hears the incorrect grammar, believing it to be correct. Could this grammar error be driven by ignorance?
Do I protest too much? I don’t think so. Even though the English language is more than a bit complicated, I believe it is important to keep the language intact for as long as possible. Change will come, of course. And that’s all right. But I am talking about basic grammar here, not some new, catchy word or phrase. I am talking about some very rich companies. It seems to me that they could have gotten it right.
My second gripe is with the now common sentence regarding one’s diet: I eat healthy. The word healthy is an adjective. Adjectives describe or modify nouns or pronouns. In the sentence I eat healthy, the adjective healthy modifies nothing. To say that you eat healthy is like saying that you eat eggs, or apples, or some other thing. It is using the word healthy as a noun. You can eat a healthy diet—a diet that is healthy for you. You can eat healthily—in a manner that is healthy for you. But you can’t eat healthy unless you can describe the taste, smell, size, texture, and so forth of the thing that you are eating.
Will my gripes (okay, the rantings of a curmudgeon) make any difference? Probably not. Most people are too busy with their own problems to care about a little deviation in proper grammar usage of the English language . . . but I feel better.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Logic, Secularism, and Sex
I am not a deist. That way is most illogical for many reasons, which I will not discuss at this time. I believe that the Founding Fathers of this nation tried to give us a secular government.
They knew that most people were deists of one type or another, but they believed that the government should not enforce one religion’s dogma over another. They did not want a religious government, knowing that such a government would lead to less, not more liberty, and more, not less intolerance. They knew that legislators would vote according to their personal moral beliefs, but that the government, as an entity, should be neutral on the issue of religion. That was logical.
I am also a rational hedonist, that is, someone who believes that the pursuit of pleasure qua pleasure is a good, but sometimes the chores need to be done first. The pursuit of pleasure, of course, would include things sexual.
I like sex. I think it’s great. I think that any and every adult who wants to participate in a sexual behavior should be encouraged to do so, anyway they want, with anyone they want. It’s such a stress reliever and it feels so good . . . well, it does if you do it right. Of course, as a rational hedonist I have to add the following caveat: Enjoy sex as you want just so long as you do not violate the rights of others.
My guiding principle in life, the path that I believe all citizens of a truly free and liberty-loving society should follow, and that the laws and regulations of the government should adhere to is rather simple. Any and all non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property, that does not immediately and directly threaten to physically harm other people or their property, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, especially if done in private and on private property is the inalienable right of all adults.
But, when it came to the sexual issue, I thought that something more needed to be added to my guiding principle. After much thought I have come up with three logical rules that should always be followed when it comes to sexual behavior. I call them the three objective rules of sex.
First, all people involved must be mentally competent and of a sufficient age so that their decision to have any sexual encounter will be accepted as a knowing and willing consensual decision. For simplicity's sake, we will call such people consenting adults. (The age of consent varies from nation-to-nation, even by state or province in many nations, from 12 to 21—and in the United States from 14 to 18.) Second, there must be no unwanted pregnancies. Third, there must be no sexually transmissible diseases.
That is simple enough in theory in our modern world, but somewhat difficult in practice for many people because they do not think logically, let alone act logically. They let their emotions control them. And they don’t fully follow the principle of inalienable rights. So, logically, there are only three objective reasons not to have sex for any given situation. But, of course, there are hundreds, if not thousands of subjective reasons not to.
The sexual practices of adult citizens are not a legitimate subject for government if my guiding principle of life and the three objective rules of sex are being observed. The reason that it is not the government’s concern is that no one’s right would be violated and no minors would be involved. As Lysander Spooner wrote, “[v]ices are not crimes” if they lack the intent to harm others.
Such practices are the legitimate concern of religion, but then, religions do not have the legitimate authority to punish anyone for sexual practices that do not comport with their dogmas, other than to ex-communicate them or otherwise ban them from the church. But if you do not belong to a sexually prohibitive church, or any church at all, then my guiding principle of life and the three objective rules of sex are all you need to decide if you wish to have sex of any kind.
And it should be no one’s business but your own; not your neighbor’s and especially not the government’s. Of course, that could only happen in a truly free and liberty-loving society that upholds the principle of inalienable rights, one that does not force other people’s religious/personal moral codes upon non-believing others who are not violating anyone’s rights.
I should also add that I firmly believe that society has no obligation to help any adult who knowingly and willingly makes decisions (sexual or otherwise) that causes him or her harm. As a rational hedonist, I also heed the wise words of Thomas Jefferson: Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it.
They knew that most people were deists of one type or another, but they believed that the government should not enforce one religion’s dogma over another. They did not want a religious government, knowing that such a government would lead to less, not more liberty, and more, not less intolerance. They knew that legislators would vote according to their personal moral beliefs, but that the government, as an entity, should be neutral on the issue of religion. That was logical.
I am also a rational hedonist, that is, someone who believes that the pursuit of pleasure qua pleasure is a good, but sometimes the chores need to be done first. The pursuit of pleasure, of course, would include things sexual.
I like sex. I think it’s great. I think that any and every adult who wants to participate in a sexual behavior should be encouraged to do so, anyway they want, with anyone they want. It’s such a stress reliever and it feels so good . . . well, it does if you do it right. Of course, as a rational hedonist I have to add the following caveat: Enjoy sex as you want just so long as you do not violate the rights of others.
My guiding principle in life, the path that I believe all citizens of a truly free and liberty-loving society should follow, and that the laws and regulations of the government should adhere to is rather simple. Any and all non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property, that does not immediately and directly threaten to physically harm other people or their property, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, especially if done in private and on private property is the inalienable right of all adults.
But, when it came to the sexual issue, I thought that something more needed to be added to my guiding principle. After much thought I have come up with three logical rules that should always be followed when it comes to sexual behavior. I call them the three objective rules of sex.
First, all people involved must be mentally competent and of a sufficient age so that their decision to have any sexual encounter will be accepted as a knowing and willing consensual decision. For simplicity's sake, we will call such people consenting adults. (The age of consent varies from nation-to-nation, even by state or province in many nations, from 12 to 21—and in the United States from 14 to 18.) Second, there must be no unwanted pregnancies. Third, there must be no sexually transmissible diseases.
That is simple enough in theory in our modern world, but somewhat difficult in practice for many people because they do not think logically, let alone act logically. They let their emotions control them. And they don’t fully follow the principle of inalienable rights. So, logically, there are only three objective reasons not to have sex for any given situation. But, of course, there are hundreds, if not thousands of subjective reasons not to.
The sexual practices of adult citizens are not a legitimate subject for government if my guiding principle of life and the three objective rules of sex are being observed. The reason that it is not the government’s concern is that no one’s right would be violated and no minors would be involved. As Lysander Spooner wrote, “[v]ices are not crimes” if they lack the intent to harm others.
Such practices are the legitimate concern of religion, but then, religions do not have the legitimate authority to punish anyone for sexual practices that do not comport with their dogmas, other than to ex-communicate them or otherwise ban them from the church. But if you do not belong to a sexually prohibitive church, or any church at all, then my guiding principle of life and the three objective rules of sex are all you need to decide if you wish to have sex of any kind.
And it should be no one’s business but your own; not your neighbor’s and especially not the government’s. Of course, that could only happen in a truly free and liberty-loving society that upholds the principle of inalienable rights, one that does not force other people’s religious/personal moral codes upon non-believing others who are not violating anyone’s rights.
I should also add that I firmly believe that society has no obligation to help any adult who knowingly and willingly makes decisions (sexual or otherwise) that causes him or her harm. As a rational hedonist, I also heed the wise words of Thomas Jefferson: Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Drugs and Willfully Blind Americans
The following paragraphs are taken from my essay “The Myth of Inalienable Rights” at http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com. But first, the opening sentence of a report originating from the 248th session of the Salzberg Seminars, held February through March of 1986. These seminars are private, non-profit discussions on wide-ranging topics. This one was titled “The Cultural Dimensions of Alcohol Policy Worldwide.” Twenty-one nations were represented.
However much the American public may worry about illicit drug use, it remains both true and generally acknowledged that alcohol, a legal drug, costs a great deal more in whatever metric applied: medical, social, economic, or public health. (Walsh, et al.)
_________________________________________________
Tobacco (nicotine) is the most harmful drug in use in America today in terms of deaths per year. It is generally accepted that the annual death toll from the use of the drug nicotine is over 400,000. Alcohol is the second most deadly drug in terms of deaths per year, with a yearly average of 200,000. [5] But when the effects of the present drug prohibition are factored out, that is, the violence caused by the prohibition, as well as deaths caused by adulterated drugs, deaths per year for the use of the presently illegal drugs are not more than 5,000. [6] This is one-one hundred twentieth (1/120) of the combined effects of alcohol and tobacco. To put it differently, deaths per year from the presently illegal drugs, as a percentage, compared to alcohol and tobacco, is 0.833%, or less than 1%. Yet, for those 5,000 people who knowingly and willingly choose to use the drug or drugs which kill them, we, as a nation, are willing to spend 30 billion dollars per year in the attempt (and not a very successful attempt) to prohibit those drugs. [7] Actually, that figure is probably as much as 100 billion dollars per year. [8] We are also willing to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people who have not harmed anyone. And, I might add, that this huge expenditure and mega-incarceration is, for the most part, futile. All the laws passed, money spent, and people incarcerated has not substantially stopped the use of the presently illegal drugs.
. . . .
Consider this: If it is wrong to make and sell any of the presently illegal drugs because of the perceived or potential harm that they may cause, then how much more wrong must it be to make and sell alcohol and tobacco for the demonstrably greater harm that they cause? Can the people who sell alcohol and tobacco, the people who manufacture the booze and cigarettes, or the farmers who grow the tobacco, or the grain and fruit used to make alcohol, can those people claim rightness of purpose, legitimacy of their businesses, and moral superiority, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people will die and that millions will suffer because of the misuse of their labor and their products? Can they logically or morally be given reputable status and community support over the marijuana or cocaine distributors who also provide their drugs to willing customers, but drugs that cause far less harm overall in our society than either alcohol or tobacco?
If the government has the legitimate right and the moral duty to rid society of harmful, mind-altering, and possibly addictive drugs, then isn’t it logical that the government should put their greatest efforts into combating the most harmful drugs first? Those being, of course, alcohol and tobacco. Wow! What a war on drugs that would make! More violence, more theft, more corruption, more danger to all people at all times in all places, and millions more people put in prison. It would be for the common good, of course, but it would also be one hell of a boost to the various justice department bureaucracies, police departments, as well as the prison building and supplying industries along with prison guards and their unions. These are the ones, today, who legally benefit from the so-called war on drugs. Why, they’d have to fence off Kansas and put all the prisoners there!
_________________________________________________
5. Extrapolated from the Fifth Special Report to the U. S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources.
6. In May of 1991, Jeffrey M. Blum, an associate professor of law at the University of Buffalo, filed a (letter) brief at the request of federal judge, John Elfvin, on the question of whether the constitutional rules should be relaxed because of the drug situation. The brief stated, among other things, that the total number of deaths due to either overdose or poisoning from all of the presently illegal drugs combined was between 3,800 and 5,200 (a figure taken from Ostrowski’s “Thinking About Drug Legalization”, note number two, above). To see the full letter brief—but especially paragraphs 16-23 and 27—go to http://www.november.org/dissentingopinions/Blum.html#top.
7. Ain’t Nobodies Business If You Do, by Peter McWilliams, Prelude Press, page 183.
8. O.K., Call It War, by Max Frankel, The New York Times Magazine, December 18, 1994.
However much the American public may worry about illicit drug use, it remains both true and generally acknowledged that alcohol, a legal drug, costs a great deal more in whatever metric applied: medical, social, economic, or public health. (Walsh, et al.)
_________________________________________________
Tobacco (nicotine) is the most harmful drug in use in America today in terms of deaths per year. It is generally accepted that the annual death toll from the use of the drug nicotine is over 400,000. Alcohol is the second most deadly drug in terms of deaths per year, with a yearly average of 200,000. [5] But when the effects of the present drug prohibition are factored out, that is, the violence caused by the prohibition, as well as deaths caused by adulterated drugs, deaths per year for the use of the presently illegal drugs are not more than 5,000. [6] This is one-one hundred twentieth (1/120) of the combined effects of alcohol and tobacco. To put it differently, deaths per year from the presently illegal drugs, as a percentage, compared to alcohol and tobacco, is 0.833%, or less than 1%. Yet, for those 5,000 people who knowingly and willingly choose to use the drug or drugs which kill them, we, as a nation, are willing to spend 30 billion dollars per year in the attempt (and not a very successful attempt) to prohibit those drugs. [7] Actually, that figure is probably as much as 100 billion dollars per year. [8] We are also willing to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people who have not harmed anyone. And, I might add, that this huge expenditure and mega-incarceration is, for the most part, futile. All the laws passed, money spent, and people incarcerated has not substantially stopped the use of the presently illegal drugs.
. . . .
Consider this: If it is wrong to make and sell any of the presently illegal drugs because of the perceived or potential harm that they may cause, then how much more wrong must it be to make and sell alcohol and tobacco for the demonstrably greater harm that they cause? Can the people who sell alcohol and tobacco, the people who manufacture the booze and cigarettes, or the farmers who grow the tobacco, or the grain and fruit used to make alcohol, can those people claim rightness of purpose, legitimacy of their businesses, and moral superiority, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people will die and that millions will suffer because of the misuse of their labor and their products? Can they logically or morally be given reputable status and community support over the marijuana or cocaine distributors who also provide their drugs to willing customers, but drugs that cause far less harm overall in our society than either alcohol or tobacco?
If the government has the legitimate right and the moral duty to rid society of harmful, mind-altering, and possibly addictive drugs, then isn’t it logical that the government should put their greatest efforts into combating the most harmful drugs first? Those being, of course, alcohol and tobacco. Wow! What a war on drugs that would make! More violence, more theft, more corruption, more danger to all people at all times in all places, and millions more people put in prison. It would be for the common good, of course, but it would also be one hell of a boost to the various justice department bureaucracies, police departments, as well as the prison building and supplying industries along with prison guards and their unions. These are the ones, today, who legally benefit from the so-called war on drugs. Why, they’d have to fence off Kansas and put all the prisoners there!
_________________________________________________
5. Extrapolated from the Fifth Special Report to the U. S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources.
6. In May of 1991, Jeffrey M. Blum, an associate professor of law at the University of Buffalo, filed a (letter) brief at the request of federal judge, John Elfvin, on the question of whether the constitutional rules should be relaxed because of the drug situation. The brief stated, among other things, that the total number of deaths due to either overdose or poisoning from all of the presently illegal drugs combined was between 3,800 and 5,200 (a figure taken from Ostrowski’s “Thinking About Drug Legalization”, note number two, above). To see the full letter brief—but especially paragraphs 16-23 and 27—go to http://www.november.org/dissentingopinions/Blum.html#top.
7. Ain’t Nobodies Business If You Do, by Peter McWilliams, Prelude Press, page 183.
8. O.K., Call It War, by Max Frankel, The New York Times Magazine, December 18, 1994.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
The New Aristocracy Is the Old Aristocracy
Why is politics so important to so many people? I have an ex-wife (and still good friend) who is so wrapped up in politics that she can talk about little else.
I tried to point out to her recently what I consider to be a truism. The rich rule. Always have. Always will. She wasn't having it. She still believes that if enough people get on the "same page," so to speak, and vote for the right people that change would happen and America would be a better place.
The history of the world is the history of powerful and, therefore, rich people. If they weren't rich when they came into power they became rich after they did.
In the last century the so-called communists came to power with a vengeance, spouting the dogma of that so silly and unworkable, but so persuasive quasi-religious dogma.
I call those fanatics so-called communists because true communism has never been practised anywhere in the world. The very concept is anathema to human nature. Only small, well-indoctrinated religious groups can come close to achieving the communist dogma of working according to your ability and taking only taking according to your needs. (Pure and true Christianity, anyone?)
None of the former communist strongmen--Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung (Zedong), or Castro, among others, once they came to power, ever lived like the poorest among them. They lived in luxury, like a new aristocracy.
In fact, Milovan Djilas, who fought beside Tito in the former Yugoslavia, against the German Nazis in World War II, realized, shortly after Tito came to power as the Communist dictator of Yugoslavia, that the new class merely displaced the old class. The kings and princes were replaced with the officials and commissars of communism. He wrote a book titled "The New Class," criticizing the corruption of the communist ideals . . . and was thrown into prison by Tito.
So what does all this have to do with the U.S., today. The rich, those individuals, families, and corporations with the most wealth, control the government and what laws will be passed. And the very rich individuals and families are rich, usually, because they are in control of corporations.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The United States united in a revolution to rid themselves of the aristocracy of a monarchy. The French rebelled and cut off the heads of their aristocracy. The Russians and Chinese lined their old aristocracy up against walls and shot them dead.
And yet, a new aristocracy emerged. Well, not really. It is the same old aristocracy--the rich. The rich and those in power, who then become rich. They have always ruled and they always will rule. If they are smart, they will not rule too oppressively.
But eventually, slowly, incrementally, as is happening here in the U.S., those in power come to believe that they were born to rule and so they will use more power wrongly, violating the rights of the peasants, the peons, the serfs, the average person until a critical point is reached and the common people come together again in rebellion and throw the evil ones out.
The revolutionists will cheer and say that a new day has come. What they forget, however, is that to have their revolution they almost always have borrowed money from some rich entity, some wealthy bankers, some corporation. And, as we all know, he who pays the piper will call the tune.
And so it goes. Is there nothing that we, the average people, can do about this never-ending cycle of power and control by the rich? When the time is ripe for revolution we can join it and feel empowered. The rub is in knowing when the time is ripe. There has to be a critical mass of people who are so fed up with the current situation that they are willing to fight and die if necessary to take out the old aristocracy.
Until then--and it is never easy to judge when the time is right, as history has shown so many time with failed movements and revolutions--it might be best to do all you can to take care of yourself and your loved ones, within the parameters allowed you by those in control. And if you vote, perhaps you should even pretend that your vote counts for something. A little fantasy can make life little easier.
I will make one positive statement, however. To the extent that people are able to participate in the political process--that is, allowed--then the more that do so will slow, not stop, the eventual solidifying of the new aristocracy.
I tried to point out to her recently what I consider to be a truism. The rich rule. Always have. Always will. She wasn't having it. She still believes that if enough people get on the "same page," so to speak, and vote for the right people that change would happen and America would be a better place.
The history of the world is the history of powerful and, therefore, rich people. If they weren't rich when they came into power they became rich after they did.
In the last century the so-called communists came to power with a vengeance, spouting the dogma of that so silly and unworkable, but so persuasive quasi-religious dogma.
I call those fanatics so-called communists because true communism has never been practised anywhere in the world. The very concept is anathema to human nature. Only small, well-indoctrinated religious groups can come close to achieving the communist dogma of working according to your ability and taking only taking according to your needs. (Pure and true Christianity, anyone?)
None of the former communist strongmen--Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung (Zedong), or Castro, among others, once they came to power, ever lived like the poorest among them. They lived in luxury, like a new aristocracy.
In fact, Milovan Djilas, who fought beside Tito in the former Yugoslavia, against the German Nazis in World War II, realized, shortly after Tito came to power as the Communist dictator of Yugoslavia, that the new class merely displaced the old class. The kings and princes were replaced with the officials and commissars of communism. He wrote a book titled "The New Class," criticizing the corruption of the communist ideals . . . and was thrown into prison by Tito.
So what does all this have to do with the U.S., today. The rich, those individuals, families, and corporations with the most wealth, control the government and what laws will be passed. And the very rich individuals and families are rich, usually, because they are in control of corporations.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The United States united in a revolution to rid themselves of the aristocracy of a monarchy. The French rebelled and cut off the heads of their aristocracy. The Russians and Chinese lined their old aristocracy up against walls and shot them dead.
And yet, a new aristocracy emerged. Well, not really. It is the same old aristocracy--the rich. The rich and those in power, who then become rich. They have always ruled and they always will rule. If they are smart, they will not rule too oppressively.
But eventually, slowly, incrementally, as is happening here in the U.S., those in power come to believe that they were born to rule and so they will use more power wrongly, violating the rights of the peasants, the peons, the serfs, the average person until a critical point is reached and the common people come together again in rebellion and throw the evil ones out.
The revolutionists will cheer and say that a new day has come. What they forget, however, is that to have their revolution they almost always have borrowed money from some rich entity, some wealthy bankers, some corporation. And, as we all know, he who pays the piper will call the tune.
And so it goes. Is there nothing that we, the average people, can do about this never-ending cycle of power and control by the rich? When the time is ripe for revolution we can join it and feel empowered. The rub is in knowing when the time is ripe. There has to be a critical mass of people who are so fed up with the current situation that they are willing to fight and die if necessary to take out the old aristocracy.
Until then--and it is never easy to judge when the time is right, as history has shown so many time with failed movements and revolutions--it might be best to do all you can to take care of yourself and your loved ones, within the parameters allowed you by those in control. And if you vote, perhaps you should even pretend that your vote counts for something. A little fantasy can make life little easier.
I will make one positive statement, however. To the extent that people are able to participate in the political process--that is, allowed--then the more that do so will slow, not stop, the eventual solidifying of the new aristocracy.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Narcotic Drug Use Is Legal
If I were to ask you, is it legal to use a narcotic drug that was not prescribed by a medical doctor for legitimate medical reasons, you would probably answer, absolutely not. You would be wrong. Alcohol is a true narcotic drug. You merely have to be an adult with the desire to imbibe an alcoholic beverage and the money to purchase it, no doctor needed.
Cocaine is not a narcotic. The government's use of narcotic to describe nearly all drugs is Orwellian. They are trying to brand the presently illegal drugs as evil narcotics. In the meantime, the favorite narcotic drug of the police, politicians, and judges is alcohol. Alcohol is also the narcotic drug that causes the most violent crimes merely from its use. The violence related to the other "narcotics" is caused by the prohibition of those drugs.
This situation then begs the question: If I, as an adult, can legally use one narcotic drug, why is it illegal for me to use another one? That is, if it is wrong to use one narcotic drug isn't it wrong to use any or all such drugs? Obviously not. And I guess I shouldn't confuse the issue with logic.
How or why does anything get done? Because one or more people have the desire to do it and they also have the ability to do it. Let's not get things muddled up with concepts such as rights and non-violent, non-larcenous, consentual adult behavior. Laws are no different than anything else that gets done. If some people want a law passed and have the ability to do so, then the law gets enacted.
There was, and still are, a group of people who believe that some narcotic drug use is immoral and therefore should be illegal. They got the laws of the United States and of the several states to reflect their personal moral/religious beliefs and certain substances become illegal. Anyone who made, sold, or used them became evil, heinous criminals . . . regardless of the fact that when those substances were legally available there was no criminal justice problems associated with their manufacture, sales, or use.
Religion (which equates to emotion), not logic, rules the day when it comes to the drugs issue.
Cocaine is not a narcotic. The government's use of narcotic to describe nearly all drugs is Orwellian. They are trying to brand the presently illegal drugs as evil narcotics. In the meantime, the favorite narcotic drug of the police, politicians, and judges is alcohol. Alcohol is also the narcotic drug that causes the most violent crimes merely from its use. The violence related to the other "narcotics" is caused by the prohibition of those drugs.
This situation then begs the question: If I, as an adult, can legally use one narcotic drug, why is it illegal for me to use another one? That is, if it is wrong to use one narcotic drug isn't it wrong to use any or all such drugs? Obviously not. And I guess I shouldn't confuse the issue with logic.
How or why does anything get done? Because one or more people have the desire to do it and they also have the ability to do it. Let's not get things muddled up with concepts such as rights and non-violent, non-larcenous, consentual adult behavior. Laws are no different than anything else that gets done. If some people want a law passed and have the ability to do so, then the law gets enacted.
There was, and still are, a group of people who believe that some narcotic drug use is immoral and therefore should be illegal. They got the laws of the United States and of the several states to reflect their personal moral/religious beliefs and certain substances become illegal. Anyone who made, sold, or used them became evil, heinous criminals . . . regardless of the fact that when those substances were legally available there was no criminal justice problems associated with their manufacture, sales, or use.
Religion (which equates to emotion), not logic, rules the day when it comes to the drugs issue.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A Thought to Ponder: The Political Destruction of Mexico
As I state in my header, I write about rights. Among those rights (as consenting adults only) is the right to use mind-altering, possibly addictive, possibly dangerous drugs. Alcohol is the premier example of such a drug and it is legal to adults.
I want all of the presently illegal drugs to have the same status as alcohol and tobacco. Use it at your own risk. Do not violate the rights of others. You shouldn't be arrested for using, but you should be for violating the rights of others. (Statistically, alcohol is the drug that the mere use of it is most likely to cause rights-violating behavior.) I bash the government as an anti-rightist institution for making illegal behavior that is intrinsically honest and peaceful.
In other writings of mine I have listed many of the benefits of the re-legalization of the presently illegal drugs. Those drugs were once perfectly legal and there was no criminal justice problems associated with their use. I have also listed many of the detriments to legalization. Mostly, that would be the collapse of the "Prison-Industrial" complex and the loss of many government jobs and contracts to people whose very existence perpetuates the violation of the rights of otherwise honest, drug-using people, of which there are millions in the U.S.
One detriment that I didn't think of was the possible complete collapse of the Mexican economy. I have just finished reading Elizabeth Lowell's novel, The Wrong Hostage. I highly recommend it. It is a well-written, fast-paced story.
In it, her protagonist explains that the billions of U.S. dollars that flow into Mexico from the drug trade is necessary to that nation's economy and that if it were suddenly cut off, Mexico would implode economically, and become a "failed nation", like Afghanistan, only it is our immediate neighbor to the South, sharing over 1,000 miles of border with us. (If you think the illegal immigration problem is bad now, imagine what it might become under such a scenario, as well as revolution and civil war.)
The hero, in The Wrong Hostage, goes on to explain that the reason the U.S. doesn't actually want to stop the drug trade is fear of such a thing happening and the possible "aftershock" effects on the United States.
That could be true, the economic collapse of Mexico I mean, if, somehow, the U.S. Congress took their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and gave us, "the people", back our full and complete adult inalienable rights.
In that event the government could always use billions of the dollars now wasted on the so-called "war on drugs" (90 years of failure and counting) to help Mexico until it could get back on its feet and develop new means of supporting itself.
Of the millions and millions of Americans who do use one or more of the presetly illegal drugs, the vast majority are honest, non-violent citizens. The violence related to the drug trade has been caused by their illegality and the fact that the proceeds cannot be legally protected. The illegality of drugs is also the reason that they are extremely expensive relative to their production and distribution.
I still believe that the net benefits of re-legalization would outweigh the net detriments, especially in the long run, even with the possible Mexican problem factored in. I am old-fashioned. I believe that all adults should be free to live their lives as they choose, regardless of the outcome, just so long as they do not violate the rights of others. That is what used to be called "inalienable rights."
I want all of the presently illegal drugs to have the same status as alcohol and tobacco. Use it at your own risk. Do not violate the rights of others. You shouldn't be arrested for using, but you should be for violating the rights of others. (Statistically, alcohol is the drug that the mere use of it is most likely to cause rights-violating behavior.) I bash the government as an anti-rightist institution for making illegal behavior that is intrinsically honest and peaceful.
In other writings of mine I have listed many of the benefits of the re-legalization of the presently illegal drugs. Those drugs were once perfectly legal and there was no criminal justice problems associated with their use. I have also listed many of the detriments to legalization. Mostly, that would be the collapse of the "Prison-Industrial" complex and the loss of many government jobs and contracts to people whose very existence perpetuates the violation of the rights of otherwise honest, drug-using people, of which there are millions in the U.S.
One detriment that I didn't think of was the possible complete collapse of the Mexican economy. I have just finished reading Elizabeth Lowell's novel, The Wrong Hostage. I highly recommend it. It is a well-written, fast-paced story.
In it, her protagonist explains that the billions of U.S. dollars that flow into Mexico from the drug trade is necessary to that nation's economy and that if it were suddenly cut off, Mexico would implode economically, and become a "failed nation", like Afghanistan, only it is our immediate neighbor to the South, sharing over 1,000 miles of border with us. (If you think the illegal immigration problem is bad now, imagine what it might become under such a scenario, as well as revolution and civil war.)
The hero, in The Wrong Hostage, goes on to explain that the reason the U.S. doesn't actually want to stop the drug trade is fear of such a thing happening and the possible "aftershock" effects on the United States.
That could be true, the economic collapse of Mexico I mean, if, somehow, the U.S. Congress took their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and gave us, "the people", back our full and complete adult inalienable rights.
In that event the government could always use billions of the dollars now wasted on the so-called "war on drugs" (90 years of failure and counting) to help Mexico until it could get back on its feet and develop new means of supporting itself.
Of the millions and millions of Americans who do use one or more of the presetly illegal drugs, the vast majority are honest, non-violent citizens. The violence related to the drug trade has been caused by their illegality and the fact that the proceeds cannot be legally protected. The illegality of drugs is also the reason that they are extremely expensive relative to their production and distribution.
I still believe that the net benefits of re-legalization would outweigh the net detriments, especially in the long run, even with the possible Mexican problem factored in. I am old-fashioned. I believe that all adults should be free to live their lives as they choose, regardless of the outcome, just so long as they do not violate the rights of others. That is what used to be called "inalienable rights."
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Naivety
Here is a quote by the Evangelist Billy Sunday, speaking upon the advent of the prohibition of alcohol (a true narcotic drug that the anti-alcohol religious people, lobbying Congress, got made illegal, thereby getting their version of religion made legal in the United States . . . 1920 to 1933).
And, of course, the present prohibition of other drugs has made the United States a better, more safe, place to live, with fewer people in prison, and so forth, too . . . yawn.
During the prohibition of alcohol, the murder rate skyrocketed and official corruption was at an all time high. But the laws could not prevent the making and sales of alcohol because too many people wanted it, therefore, making and selling it became extremely profitable, since it was illegal. This is just the same as the so-called war on drugs today. But we must remember, however, that both the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs today actually violate the inalienable rights of adults to non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that, in and of itself, does not violate the rights of other. . . and that should be very, very un-American.
"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corn cribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and children will laugh. Hell will forever be for rent."
And, of course, the present prohibition of other drugs has made the United States a better, more safe, place to live, with fewer people in prison, and so forth, too . . . yawn.
During the prohibition of alcohol, the murder rate skyrocketed and official corruption was at an all time high. But the laws could not prevent the making and sales of alcohol because too many people wanted it, therefore, making and selling it became extremely profitable, since it was illegal. This is just the same as the so-called war on drugs today. But we must remember, however, that both the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs today actually violate the inalienable rights of adults to non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that, in and of itself, does not violate the rights of other. . . and that should be very, very un-American.
See below
Since the blog site doesn't seem to think that a title could be more than a preset number of characters, I will put my title here:
HOW TO BE AN INDEPENDANT, FREE, AND SELF-RELIANT INDIVIDUAL AND WHY THE GOVERNMENT (AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS) VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS
First:
(a) Do it yourself.
(b) If you can't do it yourself, does it really need to be done?
(c) If it does need to be done and you can't do it yourself, hire someone to do it for you.
(d) If you can't afford to hire someone to do it, does it really need to be done?
(e) If it really needs to be done and you can't afford to hire anyone to do it, find others who think like you and also want to get done whatever it is that you want to get done, then, as a group, get it done.
(f) If you can't find enough others who think like you to get it done, does in really need to be done?
(g) If what you want to get done violates the rights of others who are not, themselves, violating the rights of others, including you, don't do it. You have no right to violate the rights of others, no matter how immoral or wrong you think they may be. That is a religious concept and we, in the United States of America, are supposed to have secular government. Move to the Vatican City or anyone of several mid-East countries if you want to live under a religious government.
You see, if after trying (a)-(f), above, and you still can't get it done and you turn to the government to do it, the government will merely extort (by force or threat of force) enough money from all of those you couldn't get to do it because they didn't think it needed to be done. (Basically, the government will, with enough persuasion, have no problem violating the rights of those whose behavior does not violate the rights of others, but merely irritates them or that those others find to be immoral--a religious concept.) The government will then get it done, but poorly, at a much greater financial cost than if done by private (free)* enterprise, and also at the cost of more precious liberty, by passing laws, regulations, or rules to support that which the people obvioulsy didn't want in the first place.
Second:
Behave towards others as you would have others behave towards you. If they are not committing acts that violate your rights or the rights of innocent others (such as: assault, rape, murder, larceny, willfull defacing or destruction of your property or the property of others, or obvious negligence leading to the harm of others or their property) then leave them alone. Non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not violate the rights of others should not be considered criminal behavior. To do so is to believe in rule by religion, not secular reason. If we are ruled by religion, we are ruled by the whims of emotion rather than the principles of logic.
* It is my firmly held belief that in the United States, today, we no longer have "free" enterprise. The very wealthy people and the corporations that they run also run Congress, at least to some extent, and get laws passed that help them at the expense of the rest of us, and at the expense of truly free enterprise. Truly free enterprise exists only when the government does not interfere with or intercede for any person or business, except as the U.S. Constitution, strickly interpreted, allows. Basically, the business of government is not business. It is the protection of the rights of all citizens and the protection of this nation as a whole entity. Corporations are run by people who are citizens, but corporations are not citizens, no matter what the legal fiction is as to their status.
HOW TO BE AN INDEPENDANT, FREE, AND SELF-RELIANT INDIVIDUAL AND WHY THE GOVERNMENT (AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS) VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS
First:
(a) Do it yourself.
(b) If you can't do it yourself, does it really need to be done?
(c) If it does need to be done and you can't do it yourself, hire someone to do it for you.
(d) If you can't afford to hire someone to do it, does it really need to be done?
(e) If it really needs to be done and you can't afford to hire anyone to do it, find others who think like you and also want to get done whatever it is that you want to get done, then, as a group, get it done.
(f) If you can't find enough others who think like you to get it done, does in really need to be done?
(g) If what you want to get done violates the rights of others who are not, themselves, violating the rights of others, including you, don't do it. You have no right to violate the rights of others, no matter how immoral or wrong you think they may be. That is a religious concept and we, in the United States of America, are supposed to have secular government. Move to the Vatican City or anyone of several mid-East countries if you want to live under a religious government.
You see, if after trying (a)-(f), above, and you still can't get it done and you turn to the government to do it, the government will merely extort (by force or threat of force) enough money from all of those you couldn't get to do it because they didn't think it needed to be done. (Basically, the government will, with enough persuasion, have no problem violating the rights of those whose behavior does not violate the rights of others, but merely irritates them or that those others find to be immoral--a religious concept.) The government will then get it done, but poorly, at a much greater financial cost than if done by private (free)* enterprise, and also at the cost of more precious liberty, by passing laws, regulations, or rules to support that which the people obvioulsy didn't want in the first place.
Second:
Behave towards others as you would have others behave towards you. If they are not committing acts that violate your rights or the rights of innocent others (such as: assault, rape, murder, larceny, willfull defacing or destruction of your property or the property of others, or obvious negligence leading to the harm of others or their property) then leave them alone. Non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not violate the rights of others should not be considered criminal behavior. To do so is to believe in rule by religion, not secular reason. If we are ruled by religion, we are ruled by the whims of emotion rather than the principles of logic.
* It is my firmly held belief that in the United States, today, we no longer have "free" enterprise. The very wealthy people and the corporations that they run also run Congress, at least to some extent, and get laws passed that help them at the expense of the rest of us, and at the expense of truly free enterprise. Truly free enterprise exists only when the government does not interfere with or intercede for any person or business, except as the U.S. Constitution, strickly interpreted, allows. Basically, the business of government is not business. It is the protection of the rights of all citizens and the protection of this nation as a whole entity. Corporations are run by people who are citizens, but corporations are not citizens, no matter what the legal fiction is as to their status.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Why the rights of those you disagree with are important
We are still involved in the longest, most socially destructive war in America's history: the so-called war on drugs. A large majority of the citizens of this once great nation are in agreement that the government has the legitimate power to violate the inalienable rights of those whose drug behavior does not violate the rights of their fellow citizens. Why? Is it that the average person is stupid? Is it that the average person can't be bothered to think . . . and to think logically? Is it that the average person believes that the government knows best how to control his or her life? Or is it that because the "common wisdom" is that the use of addictive and dangerous drugs in a recreational, non-medical manner is bad, so therefore the rights of those people who do use said drugs can be legitimately violated?
I believe it is a combination of all the above, but with the emphasis on the last question. But let's discuss this issue logically. Alcohol and tobacco are accepted drugs of recreational, non-medical use; tobacco less so, but still not completely unacceptable among the social majority. That fact is proven by tobacco's legal-to-adults status. Yet, those two substances are the two most harmful non-medical substances in our society. Further, almost all of the violence and much of the harm to the health of the users of the presently illegal drugs comes, not from the mere use of those substances, but rather from their illegal status. (Violent street gangs, violent drug cartels, and terrorists would have a hard time financially without the illegal status of those substances.)
If we (logically) agree that the government was given the legitimate constitutional power to stop behavior that is harmful to ourselves (which I emphatically disagree with)--that is, violate the rights of people whose behavior we may not agree with but which does not violate the rights of innocent others--then why can't the government prohibit the intake of excess calories and "empty" calorie foods? Why can't the government, using the same rationale used in the so-called war on drugs, make all of us go on a calorie restricted and healthy diet for life?
Think of all the lives we could save. It has been estimated by the Center for Disease Control that there are 300,000 premature deaths from obesity every year. That is between 15 to 30 times more such deaths than is caused by all the illegal drugs (depending on whose drug death statistics you agree with). I think we need to have a national movement to get the government to force all those overeaters to go on healthy diets. I think that there needs to be national food ration cards and government clinics to check up on all of us, even the skinny ones, just in case. Yes, let's violate the right of all the citizens and force them into National Socialist Bureaucratic way of thinking just so we can save the lives of those who won't control themselves--their weight and their health.
If the logic works for the, overall, much less harmful presently illegal drugs, how much more will it work for alcohol, tobacco, and poor diets. Let's give the government all our power over our lives so that it can keep us safe from ourselves. In the alternative, let's give all adults back their inalienable rights and only criminally prosecute those who violate the rights of others (the true definition of a crime). Then, and only then will we have a more free and liberty-loving society, if that is even what "the people" now want. Then and only then will the United States, the so-called land of liberty, stop being the world's largest jailer. And only then will the "drug" problem be put into its proper perspective, as a personal problem like obesity; to be tolerated but not causing a never-ending, rights-violating, multi-billion-dollar-per-year "war".
One last warning: The power you give to the government--when you give up certain inalienable rights--to control behavior that you disagree with, but which does not violate your rights or the rights of others, can and eventually will be used against you or your children. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America knew and said that the greatest threat to the freedom and liberty of the people was their own government. Many of us have either forgotten that or never learned it.
I believe it is a combination of all the above, but with the emphasis on the last question. But let's discuss this issue logically. Alcohol and tobacco are accepted drugs of recreational, non-medical use; tobacco less so, but still not completely unacceptable among the social majority. That fact is proven by tobacco's legal-to-adults status. Yet, those two substances are the two most harmful non-medical substances in our society. Further, almost all of the violence and much of the harm to the health of the users of the presently illegal drugs comes, not from the mere use of those substances, but rather from their illegal status. (Violent street gangs, violent drug cartels, and terrorists would have a hard time financially without the illegal status of those substances.)
If we (logically) agree that the government was given the legitimate constitutional power to stop behavior that is harmful to ourselves (which I emphatically disagree with)--that is, violate the rights of people whose behavior we may not agree with but which does not violate the rights of innocent others--then why can't the government prohibit the intake of excess calories and "empty" calorie foods? Why can't the government, using the same rationale used in the so-called war on drugs, make all of us go on a calorie restricted and healthy diet for life?
Think of all the lives we could save. It has been estimated by the Center for Disease Control that there are 300,000 premature deaths from obesity every year. That is between 15 to 30 times more such deaths than is caused by all the illegal drugs (depending on whose drug death statistics you agree with). I think we need to have a national movement to get the government to force all those overeaters to go on healthy diets. I think that there needs to be national food ration cards and government clinics to check up on all of us, even the skinny ones, just in case. Yes, let's violate the right of all the citizens and force them into National Socialist Bureaucratic way of thinking just so we can save the lives of those who won't control themselves--their weight and their health.
If the logic works for the, overall, much less harmful presently illegal drugs, how much more will it work for alcohol, tobacco, and poor diets. Let's give the government all our power over our lives so that it can keep us safe from ourselves. In the alternative, let's give all adults back their inalienable rights and only criminally prosecute those who violate the rights of others (the true definition of a crime). Then, and only then will we have a more free and liberty-loving society, if that is even what "the people" now want. Then and only then will the United States, the so-called land of liberty, stop being the world's largest jailer. And only then will the "drug" problem be put into its proper perspective, as a personal problem like obesity; to be tolerated but not causing a never-ending, rights-violating, multi-billion-dollar-per-year "war".
One last warning: The power you give to the government--when you give up certain inalienable rights--to control behavior that you disagree with, but which does not violate your rights or the rights of others, can and eventually will be used against you or your children. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America knew and said that the greatest threat to the freedom and liberty of the people was their own government. Many of us have either forgotten that or never learned it.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Politicians
I had a friend many years ago who had been the mayor of a resort town in the mountains of Northern California. He gave me a definition of a politician. I don't know if it was original with him or not. I've always remembered it, because I am cynical and I liked it. It goes like this:
I seriously believe that it doesn't matter who gets elected President of this once great nation because the very rich and influencial people and corporations are pulling the strings. I also seriously believe that any politician who stays in office for more than one term becomes corrupted, no matter what his beliefs and principles were when he first began--although, I believe that many of them begin with a wish, not actually to help their fellow citizen but rather, to aggrandize themselves.
A politician is a person who looks to see which way the herd is running, makes his way to the front of the herd and, while running in the same direction, yells over his shoulder, "follow me!"
I seriously believe that it doesn't matter who gets elected President of this once great nation because the very rich and influencial people and corporations are pulling the strings. I also seriously believe that any politician who stays in office for more than one term becomes corrupted, no matter what his beliefs and principles were when he first began--although, I believe that many of them begin with a wish, not actually to help their fellow citizen but rather, to aggrandize themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
