So, my friends, puzzle me this: When logic and facts dictates that the re-legalization of the presently illegal drugs will reduce violent crime, cut off a major money source to global terroists, and allow those who will be addicts fear-free access to medical help if they want it, why doesn't the Congress get it? Religion and emotion, pure and simple. And, by forcing their personal moral or religious beliefs upon all people, they make America, the whole world, a meaner more violent place.
"Vices are not crimes." Lysander Spooner
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." John Stuart Mill
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Lady, a.k.a., Ugga Puppa
This is Lady, my sister's bitch. Yeah, I know. I'm supposed to say dog, but technically a dog is the male of the canine species and a bitch is the female.
I am the basic caregiver for Lady. I take her for a 15 to 20 minute brisk walk every morning. That's about all she can handle. She is 12 going on 13, a good long life for a German Shepard. We live in the foothills north of Fresno, so half of the walk is uphill and the other half, of course, is downhill. After I bring her back to the house, inside, I then go for my own 30 to 40 minute brisk walk. This all happens just before and just after sunrise. The best time of the day.
I call Lady by at least two other names--Ugga Puppa, which means ugly puppy, because she was fat and ugly as a puppy. I also call her Dog-Face Bob (remember the movie Rancho Deluxe?). And when she is not doing what she is supposed to, I just call her bitch.
I love this dog. When I came to live with my sister and her husband, they were afraid that Lady might bite me. She has been known to be assertive, especially when my sister is present--she is without a doubt my sister's dog. But after the first day and I had given her a "belly-rub" (actually, the chest), they knew everything was all right. (My old grandpappy used to say, one dog knows another.)
I have her trained to the word "belly-rub?!". She lays down on her side and raises her front leg. I also have her trained to the word "outside?!" when I am ready to go outside for any reason, even just taking out the trash. She races to the back door. She hates to not be where her people are.
I doubt that she will make it another year. This winter might be her last. I will be sorry when she does go, but I will cherish the fact that I got to know this truly faithful, loving dog.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
The Hardest Drug
I read an Andrew Sullivan blog the other day, "A Conservative Approach." (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/week40/index.html) You have to scroll about half-way down the page. He was talking about drug legalization and said: "I'd legalize pot and soft drugs, and focus on meth, heroin and those drugs that can be shown to have unusually serious social consequences."
I've heard this type of comment from many of my friends too. I think Mr. Sullivan and my friends are wrong and they really don't understand the full and true meaning of personal liberty. As Lysander Spooner and John Stuart Mill, among others, have said, the only legitimate reason for society, that is, the government to interfere in the actions of a citizen is to protect the rights of others. Vices are not crimes and drug use is a vice.
Besides, the hardest drug is already legal to adults in spite of the terrible statistics associated with its use. I'm talking about alcohol. Anyone who drinks any alcoholic beverages, whether it be one or two glasses of wine with dinner, a six pack while watching the "game", or a fifth of whiskey a day, and then says that they might legalize "soft" drugs but not "hard" drugs are rather ignorant and more than a little hypocritical.
Here are some U.S. Department of Justice statistics, taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics site recently. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ac.htm). I went both to "Press Releases" and the "Acrobat File."
--In 2000 50% of the U.S. population considered themselves "regular" drinkers, about 140 million people.
--In 1995 we had 5.3 million convicted offenders and nearly 2 million, or about 36% of them admitted to having been drinking just prior to committing their offenses.
--3 million crimes are committed each year in which the victim was sure that the perpetrator had been drinking. That's about one-fourth of all reported violent crimes.
--Two-thirds of all victims of violence were assaulted by a spouse or significant other who had been drinking. (What would wife-beating be without alcohol, not to mention rape and child molestation?)
--In 1995 800,000 people were known to be receiving treatment for alcohol abuse. "Almost certainly . . . a substantial underestimate . . . ."
If that isn't enough, then consider this: "Alcohol (wine, beer, or liquor) is the leading known preventable cause of mental and physical birth defects in the United States." (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html)
Or, that alcohol-related deaths number at 85,000 (JAMA, 3/10/2004, Vol.291, No. 10, pp. 1238-1241. But in a report in Scientific American for December of 1996, the number of alcohol-related deaths was put at "over 100,000."
And then there are the inconvenient facts that when drugs were legal 100 years ago, there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use, (http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/mcn/mcn1.htm ) and that the highest death rate from the use of the presently illegal drugs is around 16,000, a figure that I find to be suspicious. I wonder if they considered the fact that alcohol, taken in conjunction with other drugs, can be a deadly combination? Two-thirds of heroin overdose deaths are really alcohol and heroin overdose deaths. That is, take the alcohol away and the heroin user would not have died. (http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html)
By all the facts available it has been shown that the hardest drug is alcohol and it is legal to adults. And, according to other reports that I have read, it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol. But more to my specific point and that is that adults (not minors) have a right to destroy themselves by racing fast cars, climbing mountains, jumping out of perfectly good airplane, deep sea diving, or any other the various ways that people risk their lives for the thrill of it . . . including using any recreational drug they want. To allow less, to say that the government has the legitimate constitutional power to stop us from using the present illegal drugs, means that we do not fully own the property of our bodies and our minds; that the government owns us and we are slaves. And that we do not have inalienable rights; that, instead, we have privileges granted to us by the government. The right to use drugs also means the right to not use drugs. But we each must find our own road to morality, if we ever do. We cannot be forced into a specific moral code by government edict.
Sadly, that is what Americans, once a hardy and independent people, have allowed their politicians to do to them. As Albert J. Nock said many years ago, the American people now look to the government as the people of Europe in 1500 looked to the Catholic Church. And that's a sad, but true, commentary on today's Americans.
I've heard this type of comment from many of my friends too. I think Mr. Sullivan and my friends are wrong and they really don't understand the full and true meaning of personal liberty. As Lysander Spooner and John Stuart Mill, among others, have said, the only legitimate reason for society, that is, the government to interfere in the actions of a citizen is to protect the rights of others. Vices are not crimes and drug use is a vice.
Besides, the hardest drug is already legal to adults in spite of the terrible statistics associated with its use. I'm talking about alcohol. Anyone who drinks any alcoholic beverages, whether it be one or two glasses of wine with dinner, a six pack while watching the "game", or a fifth of whiskey a day, and then says that they might legalize "soft" drugs but not "hard" drugs are rather ignorant and more than a little hypocritical.
Here are some U.S. Department of Justice statistics, taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics site recently. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ac.htm). I went both to "Press Releases" and the "Acrobat File."
--In 2000 50% of the U.S. population considered themselves "regular" drinkers, about 140 million people.
--In 1995 we had 5.3 million convicted offenders and nearly 2 million, or about 36% of them admitted to having been drinking just prior to committing their offenses.
--3 million crimes are committed each year in which the victim was sure that the perpetrator had been drinking. That's about one-fourth of all reported violent crimes.
--Two-thirds of all victims of violence were assaulted by a spouse or significant other who had been drinking. (What would wife-beating be without alcohol, not to mention rape and child molestation?)
--In 1995 800,000 people were known to be receiving treatment for alcohol abuse. "Almost certainly . . . a substantial underestimate . . . ."
If that isn't enough, then consider this: "Alcohol (wine, beer, or liquor) is the leading known preventable cause of mental and physical birth defects in the United States." (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html)
Or, that alcohol-related deaths number at 85,000 (JAMA, 3/10/2004, Vol.291, No. 10, pp. 1238-1241. But in a report in Scientific American for December of 1996, the number of alcohol-related deaths was put at "over 100,000."
And then there are the inconvenient facts that when drugs were legal 100 years ago, there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use, (http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/mcn/mcn1.htm ) and that the highest death rate from the use of the presently illegal drugs is around 16,000, a figure that I find to be suspicious. I wonder if they considered the fact that alcohol, taken in conjunction with other drugs, can be a deadly combination? Two-thirds of heroin overdose deaths are really alcohol and heroin overdose deaths. That is, take the alcohol away and the heroin user would not have died. (http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html)
By all the facts available it has been shown that the hardest drug is alcohol and it is legal to adults. And, according to other reports that I have read, it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol. But more to my specific point and that is that adults (not minors) have a right to destroy themselves by racing fast cars, climbing mountains, jumping out of perfectly good airplane, deep sea diving, or any other the various ways that people risk their lives for the thrill of it . . . including using any recreational drug they want. To allow less, to say that the government has the legitimate constitutional power to stop us from using the present illegal drugs, means that we do not fully own the property of our bodies and our minds; that the government owns us and we are slaves. And that we do not have inalienable rights; that, instead, we have privileges granted to us by the government. The right to use drugs also means the right to not use drugs. But we each must find our own road to morality, if we ever do. We cannot be forced into a specific moral code by government edict.
Sadly, that is what Americans, once a hardy and independent people, have allowed their politicians to do to them. As Albert J. Nock said many years ago, the American people now look to the government as the people of Europe in 1500 looked to the Catholic Church. And that's a sad, but true, commentary on today's Americans.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Curiouser and Curiouser....but conveniently forgotten
Bill Clinton was our President for two terms, eight years. Now his wife, Hilary,is running for that office. Recently I came across an old print-out concerning the disturbing number of dead people who were connected in some way to the Clintons, especially Bill. Some of the connections were tenuous at best, I admit.
But still, how many people do you know, have a business relationship with, have met, or who have done even the slightest bit of work for you, that have died a violent death: gunshots, falls, airplane accidents, and so forth? With the Clintons the number goes well over thirty, and I'm being conservative.
And then there is the case of Kevin Ives and Don Henry, two young boys between the ages of 12 and 13 who were found dead on a railroad track near Mena, Arkansas. This was when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Remember Mena? It had been alleged that cocaine was being smuggled into the country and guns were being smuggled out. This was during the Sandinista thing in Nicaragua. Oliver North, et al.?
Some people have posited that the two boys had seen something they weren't supposed to and were killed for it and the murders were made to look like they fell asleep on the railroad tracks and were killed by a train. That's was what the Arkansas State Medical Examiner claimed anyway. It was later discovered, however, that one boy died of a crushed skull and the other from being stabbed in the back...before the train ran over them.
Okay, the interesting thing here is this. There were seven other people, all of whom had information about the deaths of those two boys, who died violent deaths within three years of the deaths of those boys. What's the chances of that happening?
It looks like Bill Clinton has gotten away with something. But maybe, just maybe all these deaths are really just coincidental. Each separate and having nothing to do with Bill...or Hilary. Yeah, just maybe.
But still, how many people do you know, have a business relationship with, have met, or who have done even the slightest bit of work for you, that have died a violent death: gunshots, falls, airplane accidents, and so forth? With the Clintons the number goes well over thirty, and I'm being conservative.
And then there is the case of Kevin Ives and Don Henry, two young boys between the ages of 12 and 13 who were found dead on a railroad track near Mena, Arkansas. This was when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Remember Mena? It had been alleged that cocaine was being smuggled into the country and guns were being smuggled out. This was during the Sandinista thing in Nicaragua. Oliver North, et al.?
Some people have posited that the two boys had seen something they weren't supposed to and were killed for it and the murders were made to look like they fell asleep on the railroad tracks and were killed by a train. That's was what the Arkansas State Medical Examiner claimed anyway. It was later discovered, however, that one boy died of a crushed skull and the other from being stabbed in the back...before the train ran over them.
Okay, the interesting thing here is this. There were seven other people, all of whom had information about the deaths of those two boys, who died violent deaths within three years of the deaths of those boys. What's the chances of that happening?
It looks like Bill Clinton has gotten away with something. But maybe, just maybe all these deaths are really just coincidental. Each separate and having nothing to do with Bill...or Hilary. Yeah, just maybe.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Creator Gods
All cultures that I know of have myths of creator gods. I am most interested in the Christian one, as that is what I was taught about in my early childhood. That god is supposed to be perfect, loving, and good.
I have a problem with that. If you create something that is flawed, knowing ahead of time that it will be flawed, and when the thing you created does not work according to your rules, because it is flawed, then whose fault is it? The creator, or the thing that the creator created . . . flawed?
The absolute and abject illogic of such a concept--God creating man, knowing that man would sin because God created a flawed being, then punishing sinning man forever and ever, unless it repents and begs forgiveness and sings praises to God--is to me beyond comprehension. But it makes a good bedtime story by which to try and scare children into being good. Too bad it doesn't work.
I have a problem with that. If you create something that is flawed, knowing ahead of time that it will be flawed, and when the thing you created does not work according to your rules, because it is flawed, then whose fault is it? The creator, or the thing that the creator created . . . flawed?
The absolute and abject illogic of such a concept--God creating man, knowing that man would sin because God created a flawed being, then punishing sinning man forever and ever, unless it repents and begs forgiveness and sings praises to God--is to me beyond comprehension. But it makes a good bedtime story by which to try and scare children into being good. Too bad it doesn't work.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Death Penalty
The death penalty . . . are you for it or against it? I'm against it, but only because it has been shown in many cases that innocent men have been convicted and sent to death row. And how many innocent men have we executed in the last 100 years?
I think that a woman or child who is kidnapped, raped, then murdered is a horrifying image. I also think that a man on death row who is actually innocent and is executed is another horrifying image.
It is my firm belief that the only just cause for the use of force against another is in defense of self, loved ones, or innocent others. A murderer loses his rights to life when he, with premeditation, kills another person. If I,or anyone else, caught the murderer in action and killed him, that would be justified. If he is caught later and the State, acting on behalf of the victim and all citizens, kills the murderer, that too is justified.
I don't see the death penalty as punishment or as a deterrent to others (obviously it isn't or there wouldn't be any murders now, after thousands of years of the death penalty for certain behaviors). I see it as getting rid of the garbage. I don't care how bad a home life a person might have had, a murderer, unless truly insane, knows that what he or she is doing is wrong. More, they would not want the same thing done to them. (That's what "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is all about.) A truly, or completely, insane person doesn't know right from wrong.
But, because our criminal justice system is, at best, flawed, and in many instances corrupt, then innocent men get convicted and sent to death row. I think about how it would feel to know that you were innocent and sentenced to death. I shudder. You should too. Therefore, until we have a foolproof way to know if a particular person committed a particular behavior, which would calling for the death penalty, I think we should just put it on the shelf.
I think that a woman or child who is kidnapped, raped, then murdered is a horrifying image. I also think that a man on death row who is actually innocent and is executed is another horrifying image.
It is my firm belief that the only just cause for the use of force against another is in defense of self, loved ones, or innocent others. A murderer loses his rights to life when he, with premeditation, kills another person. If I,or anyone else, caught the murderer in action and killed him, that would be justified. If he is caught later and the State, acting on behalf of the victim and all citizens, kills the murderer, that too is justified.
I don't see the death penalty as punishment or as a deterrent to others (obviously it isn't or there wouldn't be any murders now, after thousands of years of the death penalty for certain behaviors). I see it as getting rid of the garbage. I don't care how bad a home life a person might have had, a murderer, unless truly insane, knows that what he or she is doing is wrong. More, they would not want the same thing done to them. (That's what "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is all about.) A truly, or completely, insane person doesn't know right from wrong.
But, because our criminal justice system is, at best, flawed, and in many instances corrupt, then innocent men get convicted and sent to death row. I think about how it would feel to know that you were innocent and sentenced to death. I shudder. You should too. Therefore, until we have a foolproof way to know if a particular person committed a particular behavior, which would calling for the death penalty, I think we should just put it on the shelf.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Something to Think About
Many years ago, when I was but a wet-behind-the-ears 15 year old high school student, life was much simpler and moved at a slower pace. This was long before the advent of personal computers, let alone the cell phones, ipods, mp3s, and all the other FREDs* that now supposedly make our lives easier and better. At that time I remember coming up with what I thought was a basic premise of civilized life, to wit: The greater our population becomes, the more complicated life becomes, the more the government will intervene in our daily lives and reduce our personal liberty.
This, of course, has happened. Sometimes it has been for the better, but most times it has been for the worse. If you, like me, want as much personal freedom and liberty with the least amount of government intervention in your private and business life, this trend is more than worrisome. The United States of America has changed, and is continuing to change, into something the Founding Fathers would not recognize and for which they fought to be free of.
With that in mind, I will give you some quotes from some of the very intelligent, well-read, and educated people who gave us this once great nation, which is now sliding down the slippery slope of "equality of outcome", national security, and corporate greed, into a swamp of over-regulation, loss of inalienable rights, and fascism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison
"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
"Fear is the foundation of most governments." John Adams
"Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." John Adams
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Patrick Henry
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson
___________________________________________________
* "FRED", a definition: F#%king Ridiculous Electronic Device.
This, of course, has happened. Sometimes it has been for the better, but most times it has been for the worse. If you, like me, want as much personal freedom and liberty with the least amount of government intervention in your private and business life, this trend is more than worrisome. The United States of America has changed, and is continuing to change, into something the Founding Fathers would not recognize and for which they fought to be free of.
With that in mind, I will give you some quotes from some of the very intelligent, well-read, and educated people who gave us this once great nation, which is now sliding down the slippery slope of "equality of outcome", national security, and corporate greed, into a swamp of over-regulation, loss of inalienable rights, and fascism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison
"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
"Fear is the foundation of most governments." John Adams
"Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." John Adams
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Patrick Henry
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson
___________________________________________________
* "FRED", a definition: F#%king Ridiculous Electronic Device.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Defining Narco-Terrorism
My dictionary (The Random House College Dictionary, 1984--Yes, I know. I need to update) defines "terror" as: 1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear, 2. feeling, instance, or cause of intense fear. It defines "terrorism" as: 1. the use of terrorizing methods, 2. the state of fear and submission so produced, 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
"Narco", of course, comes from the word narcotic, which in itself comes from the Greek word "narkotikos", meaning to benumb or to make sleepy. (Alcohol, by the way is a true narcotic drug.) Today, with the Orwellian-type of "newspeak" our government uses, a narcotic drug is any of the presently illegal drugs, whether they are actually narcotic or not.
If one considers that up until 1914, opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine, among other drugs, were legally available to adults and that there was no--I repeat, no--criminal justice problems associated with the use of those drugs, as well as the fact that the addiction rate was declining, then one has to wonder why were they made illegal. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 began what today we call the "war on drugs." That act was passed because many religious groups lobbied Congress to make those drugs illegal on personal moral and religious grounds.
Congress, without legitimate Constitutional authority, passed laws against the manufacture, sales, and use of those drugs except under very stringent conditions. That meant that those people who happened to be addicted to those drugs--but causing little to no harm to themselves and none to others--had to resort to illegal means to obtain their drug of choice. Congress passed religious beliefs into law in order to make whoever might want to use those drugs become more moral. Congress, again, at the instigation of religious groups, became, without legitimate authority, our moral dictators.
The end result is that the real criminal element, those who would violate rights in order to make money, became involved in the drug business, which, thanks to Congress and religion, is now a multi-billion dollar a year growth industry. Today, due to the fact that these drugs are still illegal to adults the people we call terrorists, because they use terror to try and spread their religious and political beliefs, are being funded in large part by the manufacture and sales of narcotics.
I have written extensively on the false war, the so-called "war on drugs", here in my blog and in my work entitled "The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality." (See the side bar for how to obtain a copy of that treatise.)
But now, on to the point of this blog. If, by the making of certain substances illegal, substances that, all things considered, cause far less harm than alcohol, or tobacco, or poor eating habits combined with lack of exercise; and if the illegality of those substances causes them to be utilized by the real, rights-violating criminal elements and terrorist organizations; then, are those who are responsible for making those substances illegal actually responsible for helping the criminals and terrorists? Are they the true "narco-terrorists"?
I say yes. Emphatically yes. The true narco-terrorists are those who create the conditions that allow bad people to make lots of money from substances that, were they legal to adults, would cost next to nothing. So, when you read about a possible threat to the United States, or hear of bombs going off around the world, or mourn the loss of American lives in Iraq, or the murders on our streets by violent street gangs, then you can thank the U.S. Congress, among others, for creating this climate of fear and terror. Because, were those substances legal to adults, the criminal element and terrorists would have to use other, less effective ways, to get the money to do the evil deeds that they do.
Oh, I can hear some of you now. But if those drugs were legally available then the children.....! No. The children now can get those drugs more easily than they can alcohol, which is legal to adults. And that is what I am proposing: legal to adults. If anyone sells or procures these drugs to minors then, yes, they should be punished. And if you think that by re-legalizing these drugs the whole United States would go down the drain, so to speak, then you need to do your research. But more, you need to ask yourself this: If heroin were re-legalized today, would you become the first heroin addict on your suburban block tomorrow? And, if the answer is yes, then you need to seek professional, psychological help.
But first, check out my treatise "The Myth of Inalienable Rights...", because this really is about more than just the mere use of one mind-altering and/or addictive drug or another. It's about two things: The right, as an adult, to have the complete ownership and use of your body and mind, where your behavior does not violate the rights of others (inalienable rights); and its about stopping, or seriously slowing down the funding of criminal gangs and world terrorists who now can make huge amounts of money because certain substances wanted by millions of people have been made illegal, thereby making them artificially expensive.
"Narco", of course, comes from the word narcotic, which in itself comes from the Greek word "narkotikos", meaning to benumb or to make sleepy. (Alcohol, by the way is a true narcotic drug.) Today, with the Orwellian-type of "newspeak" our government uses, a narcotic drug is any of the presently illegal drugs, whether they are actually narcotic or not.
If one considers that up until 1914, opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine, among other drugs, were legally available to adults and that there was no--I repeat, no--criminal justice problems associated with the use of those drugs, as well as the fact that the addiction rate was declining, then one has to wonder why were they made illegal. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 began what today we call the "war on drugs." That act was passed because many religious groups lobbied Congress to make those drugs illegal on personal moral and religious grounds.
Congress, without legitimate Constitutional authority, passed laws against the manufacture, sales, and use of those drugs except under very stringent conditions. That meant that those people who happened to be addicted to those drugs--but causing little to no harm to themselves and none to others--had to resort to illegal means to obtain their drug of choice. Congress passed religious beliefs into law in order to make whoever might want to use those drugs become more moral. Congress, again, at the instigation of religious groups, became, without legitimate authority, our moral dictators.
The end result is that the real criminal element, those who would violate rights in order to make money, became involved in the drug business, which, thanks to Congress and religion, is now a multi-billion dollar a year growth industry. Today, due to the fact that these drugs are still illegal to adults the people we call terrorists, because they use terror to try and spread their religious and political beliefs, are being funded in large part by the manufacture and sales of narcotics.
I have written extensively on the false war, the so-called "war on drugs", here in my blog and in my work entitled "The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality." (See the side bar for how to obtain a copy of that treatise.)
But now, on to the point of this blog. If, by the making of certain substances illegal, substances that, all things considered, cause far less harm than alcohol, or tobacco, or poor eating habits combined with lack of exercise; and if the illegality of those substances causes them to be utilized by the real, rights-violating criminal elements and terrorist organizations; then, are those who are responsible for making those substances illegal actually responsible for helping the criminals and terrorists? Are they the true "narco-terrorists"?
I say yes. Emphatically yes. The true narco-terrorists are those who create the conditions that allow bad people to make lots of money from substances that, were they legal to adults, would cost next to nothing. So, when you read about a possible threat to the United States, or hear of bombs going off around the world, or mourn the loss of American lives in Iraq, or the murders on our streets by violent street gangs, then you can thank the U.S. Congress, among others, for creating this climate of fear and terror. Because, were those substances legal to adults, the criminal element and terrorists would have to use other, less effective ways, to get the money to do the evil deeds that they do.
Oh, I can hear some of you now. But if those drugs were legally available then the children.....! No. The children now can get those drugs more easily than they can alcohol, which is legal to adults. And that is what I am proposing: legal to adults. If anyone sells or procures these drugs to minors then, yes, they should be punished. And if you think that by re-legalizing these drugs the whole United States would go down the drain, so to speak, then you need to do your research. But more, you need to ask yourself this: If heroin were re-legalized today, would you become the first heroin addict on your suburban block tomorrow? And, if the answer is yes, then you need to seek professional, psychological help.
But first, check out my treatise "The Myth of Inalienable Rights...", because this really is about more than just the mere use of one mind-altering and/or addictive drug or another. It's about two things: The right, as an adult, to have the complete ownership and use of your body and mind, where your behavior does not violate the rights of others (inalienable rights); and its about stopping, or seriously slowing down the funding of criminal gangs and world terrorists who now can make huge amounts of money because certain substances wanted by millions of people have been made illegal, thereby making them artificially expensive.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Thoughts on the Christian God
The Christian God (which is derived from the Old Testament Hebrew God and which is also the God of the Muslims, although none of the three religions can agree on how this being is supposed to be properly worshipped or what exactly is the one set of true laws that we are supposed to follow) is an enigma to me. Well, really, the people who have set out the dogma in black and white and all those who call themselves Christians, ergo, believers in this dogma, are enigmas to me.
How so, you ask? This God is supposed to be the Creator of everything: The Earth and everything that is on it, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. That's a mighty big order for a single Creator. But lets just stick to the Earth and to the top dog down here, humans, but most importantly, lets explore the supposed attributes of this Christian God.
God is all-knowing. God is all-powerful. God is present everywhere. God created everything, as mentioned above. So here we have an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being in control of . . . us.
By logic, if this God knows everything, that would mean, well, everything; everything happening at this very instant, that has happened in the past, and that will happen in the future. That means that at the moment (or how ever long it took) of creation, God knew exactly what was going to happen to every single thing It created. Like you and me . . . and the being we call Satan, or the Devil. Because, remember, God created the Devil and, being all-knowing, God had to know exactly what the Devil was going to do and when . . . and then God let the Devil do it as though He, God, was taken by surprise. Or was that God's way of creating evil? And what does that say about God then?
But more, if this all-powerful creator God knows everything, then It knew when you would be born, what you would do in and with your life, and, most importantly, if you were going to die in a "state of grace" (whether you would go to God's Heaven) or not. By logical extension, that means it doesn't matter what you do in this life, whether you are good or bad, or really, really good or really, really bad. You will die in a state of grace or not and God knows that already, from the moment of creation of the universe, and you can't do anything to change it, that is, to surprise God, otherwise It wouldn't be all-knowing now would It. And if It is not all-knowing, what else isn't It?
I mean, God's got you down in the "Book of Life" as dying in a state of grace and going to heaven, but at the last second you do something to change that and you are now going to hell. And God didn't see it coming? Hmmmm?
Think about it. 'Nough said?
Well, no. I do have another thing to ponder over. The Bible just says that God created Adam and Eve, no one else. Then when Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden (something else that God didn't know was going to happen?) they started the whole human race. Excuse me, that's a whole lot of incest. But more, that's just not enough of a breeding population to breed up a genetically diverse, robust, and healthy bunch of people.
Again; think about it.
Logic versus emotion.
How so, you ask? This God is supposed to be the Creator of everything: The Earth and everything that is on it, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. That's a mighty big order for a single Creator. But lets just stick to the Earth and to the top dog down here, humans, but most importantly, lets explore the supposed attributes of this Christian God.
God is all-knowing. God is all-powerful. God is present everywhere. God created everything, as mentioned above. So here we have an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being in control of . . . us.
By logic, if this God knows everything, that would mean, well, everything; everything happening at this very instant, that has happened in the past, and that will happen in the future. That means that at the moment (or how ever long it took) of creation, God knew exactly what was going to happen to every single thing It created. Like you and me . . . and the being we call Satan, or the Devil. Because, remember, God created the Devil and, being all-knowing, God had to know exactly what the Devil was going to do and when . . . and then God let the Devil do it as though He, God, was taken by surprise. Or was that God's way of creating evil? And what does that say about God then?
But more, if this all-powerful creator God knows everything, then It knew when you would be born, what you would do in and with your life, and, most importantly, if you were going to die in a "state of grace" (whether you would go to God's Heaven) or not. By logical extension, that means it doesn't matter what you do in this life, whether you are good or bad, or really, really good or really, really bad. You will die in a state of grace or not and God knows that already, from the moment of creation of the universe, and you can't do anything to change it, that is, to surprise God, otherwise It wouldn't be all-knowing now would It. And if It is not all-knowing, what else isn't It?
I mean, God's got you down in the "Book of Life" as dying in a state of grace and going to heaven, but at the last second you do something to change that and you are now going to hell. And God didn't see it coming? Hmmmm?
Think about it. 'Nough said?
Well, no. I do have another thing to ponder over. The Bible just says that God created Adam and Eve, no one else. Then when Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden (something else that God didn't know was going to happen?) they started the whole human race. Excuse me, that's a whole lot of incest. But more, that's just not enough of a breeding population to breed up a genetically diverse, robust, and healthy bunch of people.
Again; think about it.
Logic versus emotion.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Should We Tolerate Intolerance?
The Muslim religion seems to me to be an extremely intolerant one. Any religion that cannot tolerate a foreigner, who does not live in a Muslim-ruled country, who lives in a nation that is tolerant of diverse views, that makes a cartoon about the Muslim prophet, Mohamed, is a religion that should not be tolerated. Wake up and smell the coffee. We are in the 21st Century.
Muslim writers who write books that criticize or hold an unorthodox view of the Muslim religion get death threats...officially, by religious/legal representatives of the Muslim faith. These fatwas claim the named person to be a heretic and criminal and therefore, by Muslim religion, they can be killed by any "good" Muslim anywhere in the world. A few years ago a Danish cartoonist had a death fatwa proclaimed against him for merely drawing a representation of Mohamed. Now a Swedish cartoonist is in a similar position.
Listen to me, all you good people who want a modern, not medieval, world, one in which we can criticize anything and tolerate the different beliefs that exist among us. It is time to declare bounties (the equivalent of a fatwa) on those Muslim leaders who issue these proclamations of ignorance and intolerance. May all those evil people burn in Hell forever.
If only it were so. But there just is no Hell, nor is there a Heaven. Do you think that a rational God would create a world like this, populate it with defectively created people like us, then say if you don't say "mother may I" and take two steps forward, one backwards, and three to the right, that I will torment you forever in Hell? That sounds like one hell of an irrational being. I wouldn't want that thing to be God of anything, let alone the universe.
(Geez! I'm just a little guy, and no one reads my blogs, but if some Muslim fascist should happen to, he could instigate a mullah somewhere to issue a fatwa against me because I'm criticizing the Muslim religion and possible also because I'm not a "believer." That, of course, would be illogical, but then, all religions are based on emotion, not logic.)
Moving on. More intolerance: the Jena 6 issue. Now I don't hold for violence except for defense of self, loved ones, and innocent others. But when I found out that they had been harassed for sitting under the "reserved for whites" tree on the school grounds, I could understand their rage, especially when nooses were found hanging in that tree the next day. They live in the deep South. There is a long and horrible tradition of intolerance in the South. A black man was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas not all that long ago. Countless black men have been lynched in the last 100 years. And don't think it won't happen again.
How could the school allow, or not be aware of the "for whites only" tree and why did the school principle and administration allow it to go on? They claimed that there was no such thing, that all students could sit anywhere on the campus that they wanted to. Obviously not. And I blame the intentionally blind teachers and school administrators at the high school.
This is just more intolerant b.s. like the emotionally-minded Muslims. If there was such a thing as Hell and Jesus Christ was the Son of a just God, then those intolerant whites and the Muslims would have fun trying to find extra ways to torture each other when they ended up there...which, in a logic universe, they would. And I'm not letting off the quiet bigots and intolerant ones among us; the ones who do nothing, maybe even say nothing, but quietly cheer on the intolerance that destroys a town, a society, eventually the world. And there are many of those--Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists alike.
Oh my, the human race! What an emotional, illogical mess you are.
Muslim writers who write books that criticize or hold an unorthodox view of the Muslim religion get death threats...officially, by religious/legal representatives of the Muslim faith. These fatwas claim the named person to be a heretic and criminal and therefore, by Muslim religion, they can be killed by any "good" Muslim anywhere in the world. A few years ago a Danish cartoonist had a death fatwa proclaimed against him for merely drawing a representation of Mohamed. Now a Swedish cartoonist is in a similar position.
Listen to me, all you good people who want a modern, not medieval, world, one in which we can criticize anything and tolerate the different beliefs that exist among us. It is time to declare bounties (the equivalent of a fatwa) on those Muslim leaders who issue these proclamations of ignorance and intolerance. May all those evil people burn in Hell forever.
If only it were so. But there just is no Hell, nor is there a Heaven. Do you think that a rational God would create a world like this, populate it with defectively created people like us, then say if you don't say "mother may I" and take two steps forward, one backwards, and three to the right, that I will torment you forever in Hell? That sounds like one hell of an irrational being. I wouldn't want that thing to be God of anything, let alone the universe.
(Geez! I'm just a little guy, and no one reads my blogs, but if some Muslim fascist should happen to, he could instigate a mullah somewhere to issue a fatwa against me because I'm criticizing the Muslim religion and possible also because I'm not a "believer." That, of course, would be illogical, but then, all religions are based on emotion, not logic.)
Moving on. More intolerance: the Jena 6 issue. Now I don't hold for violence except for defense of self, loved ones, and innocent others. But when I found out that they had been harassed for sitting under the "reserved for whites" tree on the school grounds, I could understand their rage, especially when nooses were found hanging in that tree the next day. They live in the deep South. There is a long and horrible tradition of intolerance in the South. A black man was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas not all that long ago. Countless black men have been lynched in the last 100 years. And don't think it won't happen again.
How could the school allow, or not be aware of the "for whites only" tree and why did the school principle and administration allow it to go on? They claimed that there was no such thing, that all students could sit anywhere on the campus that they wanted to. Obviously not. And I blame the intentionally blind teachers and school administrators at the high school.
This is just more intolerant b.s. like the emotionally-minded Muslims. If there was such a thing as Hell and Jesus Christ was the Son of a just God, then those intolerant whites and the Muslims would have fun trying to find extra ways to torture each other when they ended up there...which, in a logic universe, they would. And I'm not letting off the quiet bigots and intolerant ones among us; the ones who do nothing, maybe even say nothing, but quietly cheer on the intolerance that destroys a town, a society, eventually the world. And there are many of those--Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists alike.
Oh my, the human race! What an emotional, illogical mess you are.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Eating Ourselves Into Extinction
No, I'm not talking about the overweight problem in America. Although that is part of the picture. Modern dietary habits started about 400 years ago, when sugar was made available to the average person, not just the rich. A few decades later and white flour, again, normally only affordable by the rich at that time, came into common usage. Much later, in the 20th Century, animal fats were replaced by highly processed vegetable oils. Pasteurization, which, at the time of its discovery, was useful in stopping the spread of TB, was becoming the norm by the early part of the 20th Century. We have since found out that pasteurization causes milk, an excellent natural food when ingested raw, to become a health problem for many. And, of course, with modern veterinarian practices, cows--and therefore their milk--can be certified disease free. Then came trans-fats, artificial flavorings, dyes, and preservatives by the carload. And don't forget that modern meat production uses hormones and antibiotics that end up in us, none of which are necessary when cows, chickens, and pigs are raised in natural "free range" conditions.
Today there are serious health problems related to our low-fat, highly processed food stuffs. They are killing us slowly. And then there is soy. It is not the wonderful food that it has been made out to be . . . except for the farmers and food processors who make money off of it.
In the years before our modern diet became entrenched, before the unproven theory that saturated fats and cholesterol levels over 200 caused heart disease, there was low rates of heart disease and cancer and almost no autism and ADA. Yet, our great-grandparents and all those who came before them ate red meat, butter, and cream; cooked in lard and tallow or coconut oil. They also prepared their whole grains by soaking, sprouting, or fermenting them. Think of sourdough bread, or how mama or grandma used to soak the beans overnight before cooking them. Five hundred years ago, that included rice in Asia and oats in Europe, among other grains that were not eaten without some sort of process that made them easier to digest and healthier overall.
Saturated fats and cholesterol are necessary for proper brain development in babies and growing children, right up into and through their adolescent years. Studies have shown that people with low cholesterol--160 and below--have a higher rate of death for all causes (including suicide!) than people with cholesterol rates of 200 to 240. Saturated fats are also needed for various immune functions in our bodies. Other studies have shown that people with low cholesterol contract and die from infectious diseases at a higher rate than those who eat more saturated fat and have high cholesterol numbers.
Some of the problems with soy is that it could be lowering the age of puberty in girls, raising the age of puberty in boys, lowering testosterone levels in men, and enhancing cancer-causing agents that are always in our bodies. And no, soy or soya is not an ancient, respected oriental food. It has only been used on a regular basis since about 1100 A.D., and then only in fermented forms, and further, in small quantities infrequently. Soy, as well as all grains, nuts, and seeds contain phytic acid which inhibit vitamin and mineral uptake by the body. They also contain other chemicals that are harmful to us unless deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or fermenting. Doing so, it has been discovered, also increases the availability of the nutrients contained in those grains.
Modern food processing, besides stripping away much of the good parts of the grains, uses high temperature and high pressure techniques that twist and distorts fragile protein molecules, turning them into toxic molecules and producing high levels of free radicals. And, if that wasn't bad enough, excitotoxins, like MSG (in various forms and under various names) are produced or added to our modern processed foods. Those chemicals have been proven to be extremely deleterious to our health.
All of this unnatural food processing is slowly killing us and reducing our fertility and the viability of the human race. If the whole world were to eat like the average American, then I would say don't worry about global warming or possible asteroid impact or any other natural disaster. The human race would decimate itself within five to six generations, to the point that the few million survivors would have to go back to the ancient, but healthy ways of food gathering and cooking.
You might want to visit the Weston A. Price Foundation site and look around. There are several excellent articles, written by qualified professionals, and backed up by scientific studies. Most of those studies have been around for years, but they have been ignored by those trying to prove the "lipid theory" (that all saturated fats, not just the trans-fats, are bad for you). Those studies have also been ignored because they show that highly processed foods are dangerous to our health, and golly gee-whiz, the multi-billion dollar a year food processing industry just doesn't want that information to become common knowledge.
The only reason the average life-span of Americans is longer today is because of medical intervention, not because we have better food choices. If you don't have your health, all the money in the world is pointless. So, since it is your health, and that of your children, go to the Weston A. Price site (above) and get yourself educated about what constitutes good food choices.
Today there are serious health problems related to our low-fat, highly processed food stuffs. They are killing us slowly. And then there is soy. It is not the wonderful food that it has been made out to be . . . except for the farmers and food processors who make money off of it.
In the years before our modern diet became entrenched, before the unproven theory that saturated fats and cholesterol levels over 200 caused heart disease, there was low rates of heart disease and cancer and almost no autism and ADA. Yet, our great-grandparents and all those who came before them ate red meat, butter, and cream; cooked in lard and tallow or coconut oil. They also prepared their whole grains by soaking, sprouting, or fermenting them. Think of sourdough bread, or how mama or grandma used to soak the beans overnight before cooking them. Five hundred years ago, that included rice in Asia and oats in Europe, among other grains that were not eaten without some sort of process that made them easier to digest and healthier overall.
Saturated fats and cholesterol are necessary for proper brain development in babies and growing children, right up into and through their adolescent years. Studies have shown that people with low cholesterol--160 and below--have a higher rate of death for all causes (including suicide!) than people with cholesterol rates of 200 to 240. Saturated fats are also needed for various immune functions in our bodies. Other studies have shown that people with low cholesterol contract and die from infectious diseases at a higher rate than those who eat more saturated fat and have high cholesterol numbers.
Some of the problems with soy is that it could be lowering the age of puberty in girls, raising the age of puberty in boys, lowering testosterone levels in men, and enhancing cancer-causing agents that are always in our bodies. And no, soy or soya is not an ancient, respected oriental food. It has only been used on a regular basis since about 1100 A.D., and then only in fermented forms, and further, in small quantities infrequently. Soy, as well as all grains, nuts, and seeds contain phytic acid which inhibit vitamin and mineral uptake by the body. They also contain other chemicals that are harmful to us unless deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or fermenting. Doing so, it has been discovered, also increases the availability of the nutrients contained in those grains.
Modern food processing, besides stripping away much of the good parts of the grains, uses high temperature and high pressure techniques that twist and distorts fragile protein molecules, turning them into toxic molecules and producing high levels of free radicals. And, if that wasn't bad enough, excitotoxins, like MSG (in various forms and under various names) are produced or added to our modern processed foods. Those chemicals have been proven to be extremely deleterious to our health.
All of this unnatural food processing is slowly killing us and reducing our fertility and the viability of the human race. If the whole world were to eat like the average American, then I would say don't worry about global warming or possible asteroid impact or any other natural disaster. The human race would decimate itself within five to six generations, to the point that the few million survivors would have to go back to the ancient, but healthy ways of food gathering and cooking.
You might want to visit the Weston A. Price Foundation site and look around. There are several excellent articles, written by qualified professionals, and backed up by scientific studies. Most of those studies have been around for years, but they have been ignored by those trying to prove the "lipid theory" (that all saturated fats, not just the trans-fats, are bad for you). Those studies have also been ignored because they show that highly processed foods are dangerous to our health, and golly gee-whiz, the multi-billion dollar a year food processing industry just doesn't want that information to become common knowledge.
The only reason the average life-span of Americans is longer today is because of medical intervention, not because we have better food choices. If you don't have your health, all the money in the world is pointless. So, since it is your health, and that of your children, go to the Weston A. Price site (above) and get yourself educated about what constitutes good food choices.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Religious-Based Laws Rule Secular Society
"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
"Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
"In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting.
"It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crime be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such thing as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
"For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth." Lysander Spooner (1808-1887).
Not many people know of Lysander Spooner. He was what we might call an individual anarchist, always challenging the legitimate power of the government. Today we might call him a Libertarian.
According to Mr. Spooner (with whom I agree absolutely) there are vices and there are crimes. Crimes are behaviors that violate the rights of others. Vices are behaviors that pertain strictly to the person who is doing the behavior and do not violate the rights of others.
Vices should be our inalienable right . . . if we own the property of our bodies and our minds. Laws against vices are directly based on religious beliefs. But if you do not believe certain religious teaching or belong to certain churches (or any church) the government, by its own Constitution, should not be able to enforce secular laws prohibiting your participation in any or all of the various vices, just so long as you are not violating the rights of others. That would be the same as the government actively and directly supporting the religious or personal moral beliefs of some over the religious or personal moral beliefs of others.
But that's just my opinion, and who am I? You don't know me, and most of you have never heard of Lysander Spooner. But anyone who has a reasonable education, especially in history and politics should know who John Stuart Mill was. Here's what that British philosopher had to say about this issue.
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
In a truly free and liberty-loving society, the government has no legitimate power to violate the rights of adults whose actions and behaviors do not violate the rights of others. This is the basis of the principle of inalienable rights, which no government in the world, including the United States, respects and upholds. That is what Lysander Spooner and John Stuart Mill were talking about. That is what those of us who really wants true freedom and liberty need to fight for daily.
I have written more extensively on this issue in my paper entitled The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality. See the side bar.
"Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
"In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting.
"It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crime be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such thing as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
"For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth." Lysander Spooner (1808-1887).
Not many people know of Lysander Spooner. He was what we might call an individual anarchist, always challenging the legitimate power of the government. Today we might call him a Libertarian.
According to Mr. Spooner (with whom I agree absolutely) there are vices and there are crimes. Crimes are behaviors that violate the rights of others. Vices are behaviors that pertain strictly to the person who is doing the behavior and do not violate the rights of others.
Vices should be our inalienable right . . . if we own the property of our bodies and our minds. Laws against vices are directly based on religious beliefs. But if you do not believe certain religious teaching or belong to certain churches (or any church) the government, by its own Constitution, should not be able to enforce secular laws prohibiting your participation in any or all of the various vices, just so long as you are not violating the rights of others. That would be the same as the government actively and directly supporting the religious or personal moral beliefs of some over the religious or personal moral beliefs of others.
But that's just my opinion, and who am I? You don't know me, and most of you have never heard of Lysander Spooner. But anyone who has a reasonable education, especially in history and politics should know who John Stuart Mill was. Here's what that British philosopher had to say about this issue.
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
In a truly free and liberty-loving society, the government has no legitimate power to violate the rights of adults whose actions and behaviors do not violate the rights of others. This is the basis of the principle of inalienable rights, which no government in the world, including the United States, respects and upholds. That is what Lysander Spooner and John Stuart Mill were talking about. That is what those of us who really wants true freedom and liberty need to fight for daily.
I have written more extensively on this issue in my paper entitled The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality. See the side bar.
Monday, September 17, 2007
What Would You Do If You Had To Choose?
The following is from my work titled 52 Perverse Questions. First, I will give you the definition of "perverse" as presented in 52PQ, then I will give you the preface to that work, finally, I will give you one of the questions and my answer to it. The purpose of 52PQ, my whole purpose in life actually, is to try and get people to think, and to think logically. That is much harder than it sounds. I've been at it for nearly 50 years and I haven't converted many to the logical, versus emotional, side of life.
Perverse, a definition: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary). This then begs the question of what is wrong and what is right? Can questions be perverse, or is it the answers to the questions, that is, the actions taken in regard to the questions that are perverse? What rules do we need in our modern society to navigate the questions that life puts before us so that we make right decisions instead of wrong or perverse decisions?
PREFACE TO 52 PERVERSE QUESTIONS
“It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual’s incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500.”Albert J. Nock
In 2006, the “incurious attitude” of the people towards the “phenomenon of the State,” if anything, is even stronger than in 1935. Few citizens question from where or from whom the government gets its legitimate power, or why the government should be allowed to control personal aspects of the lives of its citizens even when those aspects do not violate the rights of others. The average citizens merely accepts that the phenomenon, that is, the power of the government, is a given, just as they believed that the power of the Church in 1500 was a given.
The government passes laws (as did the Church) which it then enforces upon pain of fines, imprisonment, or, if you should resist too strongly, death. It would be wise to never forget that you cannot equate law and justice. Law does not always equal that which is right or just…the protection of our inalienable rights. At one time, in the United States of America, it was legal to own people. The United States Supreme Court upheld the laws that allowed slavery. Those laws were neither right nor just. They were perverse and hideous. So was the Supreme Court for upholding those laws.
Quite often the decisions of the Supreme Court are merely reflections of what either the powerful or a majority of the people, at a particular time, believes to be correct behavior and have nothing to do with absolute truths and justice. When laws violate the inalienable rights of citizens there can be no justice. Citizens do not have a duty or obligation to obey such laws. Indeed, good citizens have a duty and obligation to see that such laws are struck down and removed from the books and that those who have participated in making and upholding those laws are removed from office, as those people are perverse and direct threats to the inalienable rights of all citizens.
Question 8, from my 52PQ: Assume that a young man and young woman that you know have fallen in love and are planning to get married. They were orphaned as babies, one and two years old. Due to circumstances at the time the children were sent to two different orphanages and later adopted by two different families. You knew their parents and know that they are actually half-brother and half-sister; same mother, different fathers. The records have been lost and no one but you knows the relationship of these two young people, not even the young couple's adoptive families. Further, the young woman has become pregnant by the young man. You must choose between (A) telling them the truth (and you have the evidence to back up your words) or (B) wishing them a very happy and long marriage and congratulating them on the pregnancy.
The answer for number 8: Half brother and sister are nearly like first cousins who, in many states of the United States and many other nations, can legally marry. Were they full brother and sister you might wish to inform them and let them make the decision themselves. Abraham, of the Bible, and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister; same father, different mothers. The major problem with having sex with a close relative—incest—is the possibility of producing mentally and/or physically weak, sickly, or deformed children, due to reinforcement of bad recessive genes. People who carry bad recessive genes can marry with no legal problems, even if both persons carry the bad recessive, as long as they are not close relatives, because there is no DNA screening done. Further, not every child born of an incestuous relationship is genetically damaged. It is possible that this couple, the half brother and sister could well have normal, healthy children. If you tell them now it would serve no purpose except to upset them, maybe break up a happy couple, and cause her to get an abortion or, at the very least, worry herself sick until the birth of the child. (B) = correct.
Question number 8 is a rather "tame" one. There are many others that a majority of the people who read them would find shocking. Still, all the questions are designed to make one think logically . . . if one can.
Perverse, a definition: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary). This then begs the question of what is wrong and what is right? Can questions be perverse, or is it the answers to the questions, that is, the actions taken in regard to the questions that are perverse? What rules do we need in our modern society to navigate the questions that life puts before us so that we make right decisions instead of wrong or perverse decisions?
PREFACE TO 52 PERVERSE QUESTIONS
“It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual’s incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500.”Albert J. Nock
In 2006, the “incurious attitude” of the people towards the “phenomenon of the State,” if anything, is even stronger than in 1935. Few citizens question from where or from whom the government gets its legitimate power, or why the government should be allowed to control personal aspects of the lives of its citizens even when those aspects do not violate the rights of others. The average citizens merely accepts that the phenomenon, that is, the power of the government, is a given, just as they believed that the power of the Church in 1500 was a given.
The government passes laws (as did the Church) which it then enforces upon pain of fines, imprisonment, or, if you should resist too strongly, death. It would be wise to never forget that you cannot equate law and justice. Law does not always equal that which is right or just…the protection of our inalienable rights. At one time, in the United States of America, it was legal to own people. The United States Supreme Court upheld the laws that allowed slavery. Those laws were neither right nor just. They were perverse and hideous. So was the Supreme Court for upholding those laws.
Quite often the decisions of the Supreme Court are merely reflections of what either the powerful or a majority of the people, at a particular time, believes to be correct behavior and have nothing to do with absolute truths and justice. When laws violate the inalienable rights of citizens there can be no justice. Citizens do not have a duty or obligation to obey such laws. Indeed, good citizens have a duty and obligation to see that such laws are struck down and removed from the books and that those who have participated in making and upholding those laws are removed from office, as those people are perverse and direct threats to the inalienable rights of all citizens.
Question 8, from my 52PQ: Assume that a young man and young woman that you know have fallen in love and are planning to get married. They were orphaned as babies, one and two years old. Due to circumstances at the time the children were sent to two different orphanages and later adopted by two different families. You knew their parents and know that they are actually half-brother and half-sister; same mother, different fathers. The records have been lost and no one but you knows the relationship of these two young people, not even the young couple's adoptive families. Further, the young woman has become pregnant by the young man. You must choose between (A) telling them the truth (and you have the evidence to back up your words) or (B) wishing them a very happy and long marriage and congratulating them on the pregnancy.
The answer for number 8: Half brother and sister are nearly like first cousins who, in many states of the United States and many other nations, can legally marry. Were they full brother and sister you might wish to inform them and let them make the decision themselves. Abraham, of the Bible, and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister; same father, different mothers. The major problem with having sex with a close relative—incest—is the possibility of producing mentally and/or physically weak, sickly, or deformed children, due to reinforcement of bad recessive genes. People who carry bad recessive genes can marry with no legal problems, even if both persons carry the bad recessive, as long as they are not close relatives, because there is no DNA screening done. Further, not every child born of an incestuous relationship is genetically damaged. It is possible that this couple, the half brother and sister could well have normal, healthy children. If you tell them now it would serve no purpose except to upset them, maybe break up a happy couple, and cause her to get an abortion or, at the very least, worry herself sick until the birth of the child. (B) = correct.
Question number 8 is a rather "tame" one. There are many others that a majority of the people who read them would find shocking. Still, all the questions are designed to make one think logically . . . if one can.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Cholesterol Testing for Babies?
Many studies that show the benefits of cholesterol and why it is critical for proper health are being ignored in favor of the unproven, but widely accepted, lipid theory of heart disease. The lipid theory states, basically, that all saturated fats are bad for us, that they will raise our cholesterol levels, and that they cause arterial plaque build-up and heart disease. Cholesterol has been made into a demon that must be banished at all costs and now, a group of British doctors are saying that children as young as 15 months old (babies, really) should be tested for high cholesterol levels.
There are just a couple of problems with that proposal. Mother’s milk, the perfect food for babies, is very high in saturated fat and cholesterol. [1] Babies and growing children need cholesterol for the proper and healthy development of their brains and nervous systems. [2]
It has been shown in several studies that the people who have high cholesterol levels live longer than those who do not. Professor David R. Jacobs, et al. (Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota), researched the results of more than 15 large-scale studies of over 65 thousand deaths. The results showed that there was a higher risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases by those people who had low cholesterol levels. [3]
The following statement was published in The Lancet, Vol. 358, Number 9279, Aug. 2001: “Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.” [4]
And what is the treatment for people with, supposedly, high cholesterol? Statin drugs like Lipitor. But those drugs are not the wonder drugs that the pharmaceutical companies who make them would have you believe. In a study of 20 people with regular heart capacities, after six months on a regimen of low dose Lipitor (20 mg/day), the study group’s heart functions became abnormal. They had low levels of a necessary chemical called “Co-Q 10. This led to muscle pain and weakness. [5] Among the symptoms are slurred speech, balance problems, and severe fatigue. [6]
So what would the good doctors treat babies with, if they found they had, supposedly, high cholesterol levels? Statins? The testing done and the negative effects of statins were all on adults, usually over 40 years old. What would happen to small children who would be forced to take this medicine for perhaps years?
Cholesterol is not our enemy. It is necessary for normal development and healthy living right through our old age and up to our deaths. In 1948 a study was begun in Framingham, Massachusetts: The Framingham Heart Study. Forty years later the director of the program was forced to admit the following: “In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.” The study did show that those people who were overweight and had “abnormally” high levels of cholesterol had a somewhat greater risk for heart problems, but not by much. [7]
So what can be considered to be normal or good levels of cholesterol? According to Mary Enig, PhD, an internationally recognized expert in dietary fats, if your cholesterol levels are between 200 and 240, they are normal. [8]
There is so much to this cholesterol issue that is not being told by the people who are funding many medical researchers—large food processing and pharmaceutical companies. To be fully informed we all need to take the time to do a little research on our own. After all, it’s our health that we are talking about. With good health we can live good lives, whether we are rich or poor. Below are several sites within the Weston A. Price Foundation web pages. All their articles and claims are backed by reviewable studies.
__________________________________________________
[1] http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html
[2] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#chol
[3] http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html
[4] http://www.westonaprice.org/askdoctor/lowcholesterol.html
[5] http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html
[8] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_phony.html
There are just a couple of problems with that proposal. Mother’s milk, the perfect food for babies, is very high in saturated fat and cholesterol. [1] Babies and growing children need cholesterol for the proper and healthy development of their brains and nervous systems. [2]
It has been shown in several studies that the people who have high cholesterol levels live longer than those who do not. Professor David R. Jacobs, et al. (Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota), researched the results of more than 15 large-scale studies of over 65 thousand deaths. The results showed that there was a higher risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases by those people who had low cholesterol levels. [3]
The following statement was published in The Lancet, Vol. 358, Number 9279, Aug. 2001: “Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.” [4]
And what is the treatment for people with, supposedly, high cholesterol? Statin drugs like Lipitor. But those drugs are not the wonder drugs that the pharmaceutical companies who make them would have you believe. In a study of 20 people with regular heart capacities, after six months on a regimen of low dose Lipitor (20 mg/day), the study group’s heart functions became abnormal. They had low levels of a necessary chemical called “Co-Q 10. This led to muscle pain and weakness. [5] Among the symptoms are slurred speech, balance problems, and severe fatigue. [6]
So what would the good doctors treat babies with, if they found they had, supposedly, high cholesterol levels? Statins? The testing done and the negative effects of statins were all on adults, usually over 40 years old. What would happen to small children who would be forced to take this medicine for perhaps years?
Cholesterol is not our enemy. It is necessary for normal development and healthy living right through our old age and up to our deaths. In 1948 a study was begun in Framingham, Massachusetts: The Framingham Heart Study. Forty years later the director of the program was forced to admit the following: “In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.” The study did show that those people who were overweight and had “abnormally” high levels of cholesterol had a somewhat greater risk for heart problems, but not by much. [7]
So what can be considered to be normal or good levels of cholesterol? According to Mary Enig, PhD, an internationally recognized expert in dietary fats, if your cholesterol levels are between 200 and 240, they are normal. [8]
There is so much to this cholesterol issue that is not being told by the people who are funding many medical researchers—large food processing and pharmaceutical companies. To be fully informed we all need to take the time to do a little research on our own. After all, it’s our health that we are talking about. With good health we can live good lives, whether we are rich or poor. Below are several sites within the Weston A. Price Foundation web pages. All their articles and claims are backed by reviewable studies.
__________________________________________________
[1] http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html
[2] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#chol
[3] http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html
[4] http://www.westonaprice.org/askdoctor/lowcholesterol.html
[5] http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html
[8] http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_phony.html
Friday, September 14, 2007
Aspirin Cake
The following recipe comes from a cookbook I found in my sister's cabinet. It's Our Own 'Little" Cookbook, Recipes From Little Elementary (Dr. John R. Little Elementary School, Arvada, Colorado, 1982)
Aspirin Cake is a recipe donated by Vicki Droney who, at the time, evidently had three small children.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Turn down T.V. Remove toys from counter-top.
Measure 2 cups flour. Get baking powder.
Remove John's hands from flour.
Put flour, baking powder and salt in sifter.
Vacuum mixture off kitchen floor (John spilled it).
Get an egg.
Answer phone.
Separate egg and warm Adam's bottle.
Help Mary figure out a new math problem (the old reliable way).
Gease pan; salesman at the door.
Take 1/4 inch of salt from greased pan and look for John.
Put mess in wastebasket, dishes in dishwasher.
Call the bakery.
Take an Aspirin.
Aspirin Cake is a recipe donated by Vicki Droney who, at the time, evidently had three small children.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Turn down T.V. Remove toys from counter-top.
Measure 2 cups flour. Get baking powder.
Remove John's hands from flour.
Put flour, baking powder and salt in sifter.
Vacuum mixture off kitchen floor (John spilled it).
Get an egg.
Answer phone.
Separate egg and warm Adam's bottle.
Help Mary figure out a new math problem (the old reliable way).
Gease pan; salesman at the door.
Take 1/4 inch of salt from greased pan and look for John.
Put mess in wastebasket, dishes in dishwasher.
Call the bakery.
Take an Aspirin.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Problems With Human-Caused Global Warming Theory
It is believed like religious dogma that the present global warming is all the fault of us nasty, greedy ol' humans. This is a "consensus" among scientists, we have been told . . . except, as always, there are some heretics who claim that the Earth isn't flat.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." Michael Crichton speech,2003, referring to the global warming debate.
In an article titled The Gospel According to Gore , by Mary Ellen Tiffany Gilder, she states that "Carbon dioxide has never driven temperature. In fact, the evidence shows that historically, temperature has driven CO2." (http://www.sitewave.net/news/)
So, as Ms. Gilder asks, if it isn't the CO2 causing the warming, what could it be? Well, there have been studies done that show that the Sun periodically puts out more, then less energy. Since we get all energy (and warming) either directly or indirectly (wood, coal, oil) from the Sun, it could just be possible that the Sun could effect the climate on Earth. What a novel concept.
What about the ice core samples that show that there was less CO2 in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times? A Polish scientist explains that. "Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases." Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 , written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 2004, by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland. (http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm). The good professor states that CO2 levels in pre-industrialized Europe were higher than has been reported.
"The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and energy flows into and out of the ocean which largely determines what the global mean temperature of the surface atmosphere will settle to. These flows, especially evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of CO2. This is clearly evident in the tropics where there has been no temperature increase at all in spite of a 50% increase in CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases." The Deep Blue Sea, by John L. Daly (http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm) (If you go to the above site, go to the bottom of the article and click on "Waiting for the Greenhouse", then click on Mr. Daly's biography. Mr. Daly died in 2004.)
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Why? Because it is 100 times as effective as CO2. Small changes in water vapor is more significant than large changes in CO2. If, for some reason, we are experiencing, or have just gone through, one of the periodic incidences of greater solar output, then more water vapor would be in the atmosphere helping to trap more heat.
If you do your homework, you will find that there are many scientists out there who do not agree that the global warming we are now experiencing is man-caused. From the research that I have done, I agree with them.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." Michael Crichton speech,2003, referring to the global warming debate.
In an article titled The Gospel According to Gore , by Mary Ellen Tiffany Gilder, she states that "Carbon dioxide has never driven temperature. In fact, the evidence shows that historically, temperature has driven CO2." (http://www.sitewave.net/news/)
So, as Ms. Gilder asks, if it isn't the CO2 causing the warming, what could it be? Well, there have been studies done that show that the Sun periodically puts out more, then less energy. Since we get all energy (and warming) either directly or indirectly (wood, coal, oil) from the Sun, it could just be possible that the Sun could effect the climate on Earth. What a novel concept.
What about the ice core samples that show that there was less CO2 in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times? A Polish scientist explains that. "Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases." Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 , written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 2004, by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland. (http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm). The good professor states that CO2 levels in pre-industrialized Europe were higher than has been reported.
"The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and energy flows into and out of the ocean which largely determines what the global mean temperature of the surface atmosphere will settle to. These flows, especially evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of CO2. This is clearly evident in the tropics where there has been no temperature increase at all in spite of a 50% increase in CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases." The Deep Blue Sea, by John L. Daly (http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm) (If you go to the above site, go to the bottom of the article and click on "Waiting for the Greenhouse", then click on Mr. Daly's biography. Mr. Daly died in 2004.)
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Why? Because it is 100 times as effective as CO2. Small changes in water vapor is more significant than large changes in CO2. If, for some reason, we are experiencing, or have just gone through, one of the periodic incidences of greater solar output, then more water vapor would be in the atmosphere helping to trap more heat.
If you do your homework, you will find that there are many scientists out there who do not agree that the global warming we are now experiencing is man-caused. From the research that I have done, I agree with them.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Hate Crimes and Civil Rights Violations
Bear with me here. It may take me awhile to get to my point. This blog is about the brutal rape and torture of a 20-year-old black woman in Charleston, West Virgina recently.
According to the Associate Press report, six white people illegally imprisoned the young black woman for about a week. Evidently they had beaten her, raped her, stabbed her (and otherwise cut her), choked her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, and drink from a toilet, all the while she was being called "nigger."
The perpetrators have been arrested and are in custody. They are a mother and her son, another mother and her daughter, and two other young men. If these people actually did this--and since the police rescued the young black woman from the house in which she was being held and tortured, there is no reason to believe otherwise--then they are incredibly evil people. (I wonder if they go to church and pray to Jesus Christ?)
One of the women in custody evidently told the victim that they were doing what they did to her because she was black. Now this begs the question: If these oh so white people think that black people, merely because they have dark skin, deserved to be tortured and, one can only assume, eventually killed; that is, if by being black she was such a horrible thing, then why did the white men have sex with her? Why would they sully their lilly-whiteness by putting their penises into such a vile creature? Unless, of course, they believe that all women are beneath contempt and can be treated however they, the dominate male, wishes to treat them. Not only are these people evil, they are also very illogical, but then, most people like this are.
So on to my point. The authorities are considering charging the six with "hate" crimes. An F.B.I. spokesman said that they were considering charging them with "civil rights" violations. What! Excuse me, but any time anyone murders, rapes, assaults, robs, burglarizes, embezzles, or vandalizes, that is a violation of the rights of someone else. If they are citizens, civilians, that is a violation of that person's civil rights. There need be no extra law specifically stating that the perpetrator violated the victims "civil" rights. That should be a given.
As to hate crime, well, the feds came up with that because many states, especially in the South, weren't particularly interested in pursuing justice if a white person violated a black person's rights, merely because he or she was black. The fact is, if someone burns a cross on a black person's lawn, that someone is committing a crime that is defined in law and punishable. At the very least it is trespassing, destruction of property (the lawn), disturbing the peace, and creating a public nuisance. That doesn't seem like much, but it could be good for a few weeks or months in the county jail, plus a few hundred or thousands of dollars in fines. But think, what would a black person have been charged with if the situations were reversed, if the black person burned a hate-charged symbol on some white person's lawn . . . assuming he wasn't taken out and shot or hanged immediately upon being apprehended. He would probably be charged with arson and attempted murder. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander . . . if justice is to be done. (In the South, when it comes to blacks? Yeah right.)
Hate crimes and civil rights violations b.s. aside, the evil white people in this case should be charged with false imprisonment, torture, assault, rape, and whatever else the law allows, and all charges should be classified as "aggravated". The charges should be run consecutive. These bad people should do no less than 20 years in prison, including any good conduct time.
Maybe "hate" crime and "civil rights" violation laws serve a purpose. But there are laws enough on the books already to take care of all situations, if we want justice to be done. Of course, there are many, many people, full of hate towards others of different color and race, who don't want justice for those people. They have judged them ahead of time, as that is what prejudice means: pre-justice. I wonder how many of those hateful folks go to church and pray to Jesus Christ? I mean, I don't remember any place in the Bible where Jesus (who was, by the way, in every sense a Jew) said, "God, my Father is only for the white people, everyone else you can abuse and kill as you please."
According to the Associate Press report, six white people illegally imprisoned the young black woman for about a week. Evidently they had beaten her, raped her, stabbed her (and otherwise cut her), choked her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, and drink from a toilet, all the while she was being called "nigger."
The perpetrators have been arrested and are in custody. They are a mother and her son, another mother and her daughter, and two other young men. If these people actually did this--and since the police rescued the young black woman from the house in which she was being held and tortured, there is no reason to believe otherwise--then they are incredibly evil people. (I wonder if they go to church and pray to Jesus Christ?)
One of the women in custody evidently told the victim that they were doing what they did to her because she was black. Now this begs the question: If these oh so white people think that black people, merely because they have dark skin, deserved to be tortured and, one can only assume, eventually killed; that is, if by being black she was such a horrible thing, then why did the white men have sex with her? Why would they sully their lilly-whiteness by putting their penises into such a vile creature? Unless, of course, they believe that all women are beneath contempt and can be treated however they, the dominate male, wishes to treat them. Not only are these people evil, they are also very illogical, but then, most people like this are.
So on to my point. The authorities are considering charging the six with "hate" crimes. An F.B.I. spokesman said that they were considering charging them with "civil rights" violations. What! Excuse me, but any time anyone murders, rapes, assaults, robs, burglarizes, embezzles, or vandalizes, that is a violation of the rights of someone else. If they are citizens, civilians, that is a violation of that person's civil rights. There need be no extra law specifically stating that the perpetrator violated the victims "civil" rights. That should be a given.
As to hate crime, well, the feds came up with that because many states, especially in the South, weren't particularly interested in pursuing justice if a white person violated a black person's rights, merely because he or she was black. The fact is, if someone burns a cross on a black person's lawn, that someone is committing a crime that is defined in law and punishable. At the very least it is trespassing, destruction of property (the lawn), disturbing the peace, and creating a public nuisance. That doesn't seem like much, but it could be good for a few weeks or months in the county jail, plus a few hundred or thousands of dollars in fines. But think, what would a black person have been charged with if the situations were reversed, if the black person burned a hate-charged symbol on some white person's lawn . . . assuming he wasn't taken out and shot or hanged immediately upon being apprehended. He would probably be charged with arson and attempted murder. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander . . . if justice is to be done. (In the South, when it comes to blacks? Yeah right.)
Hate crimes and civil rights violations b.s. aside, the evil white people in this case should be charged with false imprisonment, torture, assault, rape, and whatever else the law allows, and all charges should be classified as "aggravated". The charges should be run consecutive. These bad people should do no less than 20 years in prison, including any good conduct time.
Maybe "hate" crime and "civil rights" violation laws serve a purpose. But there are laws enough on the books already to take care of all situations, if we want justice to be done. Of course, there are many, many people, full of hate towards others of different color and race, who don't want justice for those people. They have judged them ahead of time, as that is what prejudice means: pre-justice. I wonder how many of those hateful folks go to church and pray to Jesus Christ? I mean, I don't remember any place in the Bible where Jesus (who was, by the way, in every sense a Jew) said, "God, my Father is only for the white people, everyone else you can abuse and kill as you please."
Sunday, September 09, 2007
More Success in the War on Drugs...it pumps money into the coffers of the Muslim terrorists
This weekend Anderson Cooper's report entitled Narco State (or maybe The Narco State) was aired on CNN. I haven't seen it yet, but from the ads for it, I believe it is showing us how well our government is doing in prolonging the war on terrorism. Yes, the war on drugs is helping Bush II to beat the drum of war ever louder. Thank God for politics.
One estimate, from Alcohol-and-Drug-Guide.com (http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/heroin-use-usa.html), says that the U.S. is spending 50 billion dollars a year in the war on drugs. Back in the early nineties, I read an article in which the writer (for the New York Times Magazine) claimed that the total cost of the war on drugs, at all levels, local, state, and federal, was 100 billion a year.
So what are we getting for this mere 50 to 100 billion dollars? According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report for 2003, there were slightly over 164,000 emergency room reports involving heroin. According to Alcohol-and-Drug-Guide.com 1.3% of all Americans have ever tried heroin in their lifetime, 0.2% have used in the last year, and 0.1% have used in the last month. (That would be 3.9 million, 600 thousand, and 300 thousand, respectively.)
Okay, 300 thousand monthly users is quite a few people, but when you consider that alcohol is 1) a true narcotic drug, 2) there are several million users, and 3) that alcohol use causes the deaths of nearly 100,000 people every year, then that many heroin users is not really that big a deal. According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10) [t]he leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435000 deaths; 18.1%
of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400000 deaths; 16.6%), and
alcohol consumption (85000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial
agents (75000), toxic agents (55000), motor vehicle crashes (43000), incidents
involving firearms (29000), sexual behaviors (20000), and illicit use of drugs
(17000). (www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf)
But the good news is that the war on drugs is helping to fund the terrorists who are determined to destroy our nation and culture. (See the Anderson Cooper CNN report.) How is this good news? Because it allows the politicians to continue to fight a holy war against the unholy heathens. You see, if the government stopped the war on drugs; made all presently illegal drugs legally available to adults, then several things would happen.
First, the price of heroin (as well as all other drugs) would plummet. Then the narco-terrorists, Muslim extremists included, would lose a huge money cow that they have been milking to fund their war on us. And, incidentally, the violent drug cartels and violent street gangs would be out of business too. Another consequence is that by leaving the laws against drug use by minors in place, it would become much harder for minors to get their sweaty little paws on those drugs.
But, the down side would be that the politicians wouldn't have big drum to beat, with a loudspeaker blaring out how tough on crime (insert "drugs") and tough on terrorists they are. Well folks, if 300,000 heroin users and a small percentage of the 17,000 drug-related deaths are worth between 50 and 100 billion dollars a year, and a whole lot more war from well-funded terrorists, then we will just have to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and keep up the success in the war on drugs.
Oh, by the way, many studies have confirmed that alcohol is highly related to heroin overdose deaths. (http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id24.html). That means, of course, if the drug alcohol was prohibited (yeah, right, snicker, snicker) then heroin deaths would drop substantially. But again, the politicians really want to help us and therefore must protect us from ourselves by keeping alcohol legal and heroin illegal. Besides, what would politicians use to relax if they made alcohol illegal (again)?
One estimate, from Alcohol-and-Drug-Guide.com (http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/heroin-use-usa.html), says that the U.S. is spending 50 billion dollars a year in the war on drugs. Back in the early nineties, I read an article in which the writer (for the New York Times Magazine) claimed that the total cost of the war on drugs, at all levels, local, state, and federal, was 100 billion a year.
So what are we getting for this mere 50 to 100 billion dollars? According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report for 2003, there were slightly over 164,000 emergency room reports involving heroin. According to Alcohol-and-Drug-Guide.com 1.3% of all Americans have ever tried heroin in their lifetime, 0.2% have used in the last year, and 0.1% have used in the last month. (That would be 3.9 million, 600 thousand, and 300 thousand, respectively.)
Okay, 300 thousand monthly users is quite a few people, but when you consider that alcohol is 1) a true narcotic drug, 2) there are several million users, and 3) that alcohol use causes the deaths of nearly 100,000 people every year, then that many heroin users is not really that big a deal. According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10) [t]he leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435000 deaths; 18.1%
of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400000 deaths; 16.6%), and
alcohol consumption (85000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial
agents (75000), toxic agents (55000), motor vehicle crashes (43000), incidents
involving firearms (29000), sexual behaviors (20000), and illicit use of drugs
(17000). (www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf)
But the good news is that the war on drugs is helping to fund the terrorists who are determined to destroy our nation and culture. (See the Anderson Cooper CNN report.) How is this good news? Because it allows the politicians to continue to fight a holy war against the unholy heathens. You see, if the government stopped the war on drugs; made all presently illegal drugs legally available to adults, then several things would happen.
First, the price of heroin (as well as all other drugs) would plummet. Then the narco-terrorists, Muslim extremists included, would lose a huge money cow that they have been milking to fund their war on us. And, incidentally, the violent drug cartels and violent street gangs would be out of business too. Another consequence is that by leaving the laws against drug use by minors in place, it would become much harder for minors to get their sweaty little paws on those drugs.
But, the down side would be that the politicians wouldn't have big drum to beat, with a loudspeaker blaring out how tough on crime (insert "drugs") and tough on terrorists they are. Well folks, if 300,000 heroin users and a small percentage of the 17,000 drug-related deaths are worth between 50 and 100 billion dollars a year, and a whole lot more war from well-funded terrorists, then we will just have to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and keep up the success in the war on drugs.
Oh, by the way, many studies have confirmed that alcohol is highly related to heroin overdose deaths. (http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id24.html). That means, of course, if the drug alcohol was prohibited (yeah, right, snicker, snicker) then heroin deaths would drop substantially. But again, the politicians really want to help us and therefore must protect us from ourselves by keeping alcohol legal and heroin illegal. Besides, what would politicians use to relax if they made alcohol illegal (again)?
Thursday, September 06, 2007
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!
Off and on, when I was outside, I noticed one or two hummingbirds around the house, so I went out and bought a hummingbird feeder, four stations, with little places for them to sit, no waiting. Well, within one week there were ten to twelve of the little creatures, all wanting to suck up the fake nectar (one part sugar to four parts water . . . and you don't have to boil it). It was fun watching all the macho territorial displays and hearing all the squeaks and peeps and whatnot sounds that they make, and to watch them zip here and zoom there, either chasing or being chased away from the feeder.
I also found out, on the Internet, that the sugar water is, like the nectar of flowers, just an energy drink to them. It's not their main food source. It seems the fascinating little birds eat soft-bodied insects like flies and mosquitoes, spiders also. That's where they get their protein and fats. Yea hummers! Get those nasty ol' bugs.
I also like to water the little patch of lawn we have, by hand. I like doing it early, just as the sun is coming up. It's cool and quiet then. Imagine my surprise two weeks ago when a hummer came zooming up in front of me, just withing the spray area of my spray nozzle. Then it flew quickly to a dead branch on a nearby oak tree, about ten feet away. I got the message and shot a fine spray up into the air where it fell gently on the little bird. It loved it! It sat there for almost three minutes, preening, spreading its wings, shifting its body. It was an amazing site. When I got tired of watering the dead tree branch and shifted the spray back down to the grass, the hummingbird flew off.
Well it happened again today, twice. The first incident happened in exactly the same place and in the same way. When I eventually got back to watering the grass and was on a different patch, just a couple of minutes later, the hummingbird came back. (Actually, there is no way that I can tell if it is the same bird or not. I'm just assuming it is.) It flew into the hose spraying area then up into the same tree, but at a different and higher location. So I sprayed it again for about two minutes. I saw another hummer sitting to the left and even higher and decided to spray it too. Evidently, it didn't want a shower, as it flew away.
Okay, no big deal. Bit of nature that I wasn't aware of. But I liked it. I will look forward to giving out more hummingbird showers in the future. Cool!
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Speaking about sex....
Speaking about sex, is it just me or are there other red-blooded, American, heterosexual males (or bi-females) that would like to see a porn cartoon starring the Esurance cartoon female with the pink hair?
No, I am not perverse. According to my dictionary (The Random House College Dictionary, 1984), perverse means the following:
--Willfully determined not to do what is expected or desired. (First definition.)
--Persistent or obstinate in what is wrong. (Fourth definition; 2 and 3 really weren't applicable here.)
--Turned away from what is right, good, or proper. (Fifth definition.)
Any intelligent, educated and logical person knows that normally healthy heterosexual males like, or are aroused by, graphic sexual depictions. It's hardwired into our brains. So that would be what is to be "expected". . . and what I, and many others, "desire."
Drawing, selling, and looking at a pornographic cartoon violates no one's rights. It cannot be wrong in a truly secular sense, in a truly free and liberty-loving society. Some may find it to be against their religion or morally wrong . . . but I don't go to that church. Therefore, I cannot logically see how my desire is wrong.
That which is "good", "right", or "proper" differs from age-to-age, culture-to-culture, nation-to-nation, religion-to-religion, and even among people within the same age, culture, nation, and religion to some degree. So, exactly what is good, right, and proper? I say it is not violating the rights of others. Treating others as I want to be treated. Everything else is up for grabs. If viewing a porn cartoon such as I suggested gives me pleasure and doesn't harm other people or their property, then, as far as I'm concerned, it is good, right, and proper and no one's business but mine.
There is the school of thought that viewing porn, even cartoon versions of it, will make me want to force myself sexually on minors and unwilling adults. That school of thinking is really illogical and based purely on emotion, generally coming from the dogma of one religion or another. I have been viewing pornography in one form or another (even inside my head . . . it's called fantasizing) for decades and I still don't want to have non-consensual sex with anyone. So, viewing the Esurance gal getting hers wouldn't lead me into violent behavior towards others, nor would it lead me to have sex with a minor. (By definition, sex with a minor is rape, even if she agrees to it.)
Well, this porn cartoon thing was just a thought . . . one I think of nearly every time I see one of the Esurance commercials. No, I'm not perverse. Although I just may have an over-active imagination . . . and too much time on my hands.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
