Hummingbirds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking about sex....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roe v Wade Not Applicable

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senator Craig Flap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Winning the Lottery and Not Being Extravagant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better Living Through Chemistry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human-Caused Global Warming Issue Is Far From Over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promiscuity, thy name is man

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

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

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

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

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

Here's to the crazy ones

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

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

The ones who see things differently.

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

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

Because they change things.

Nazis and Political Prisoners in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Modern Welfare State

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex With Animals Is Both Natural and Your Right.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Drinking age and military service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tropical Paradise......Yeck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Disunion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take A Pill!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property Rights and Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panama versus Pakistan -- Picking on the Little Guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Must Sex Be Dirty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100 Billion Dollars!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh Wonderful Woman (a poem)

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

Hypocrisy

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

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

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

Tobacco use kills around 430,000 people every year.

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

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

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

I call that HYPOCRISY!

Questioning Conventional Wisdom

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

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

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

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

TANSTAAFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government versus control

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

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

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

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

Incest in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

Smokin' hot bodies

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

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