There is a quotation attributed to Senator Everett Dirkson (1896-1969), but it has not been proven that he said it first, or ever said it at all. Still, it's a really good quip: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
Well, just how much is a billion dollars. I mean, how can the average person get a grasp on that number. If you could spend 1,000 dollars a day, it would take you one million days to spend one billion dollars. One million days, divided by the number of days per year (365)would be 2,739.7 years.
In 1994, in the New York Times Magazine, Max Frankel wrote an article, "O.K., Call It War," about the so-called war on drugs. In that article he claimed that the total amount of money being spent on the so-called war on drugs(SCWOD), at all levels, federal, state, and local, was 100 billion dollars a year. At a 1,000 dollars a day, it would take you 273,970 years to spend that much money.
If the government is going to take money from us it should not be using it to violate our rights, which the SCWOD does by preventing otherwise peaceful, honest citizens from using recreational drugs other than alcohol and tobacco (which are much, much more harmful overall to individuals and society). Nor should it be using the money to help terrorist organizations, violent drug cartels, and violent street gangs. Without the SCWOD, government regulated and sold drugs would be inexpensive (and a tax source as well) and all those nasty, violent people would have to either go out of business or start robbing banks. And finally, the government should use that money to actually do some good in this nation rather than fight the SCWOD decade after decade with no tangible results whatsoever. (Well, actually, it has been said that without the SCWOD neither crack cocaine nor "ice" would have been created, so I guess the SCWOD has had some results.)
But what could the government do with that 100 billion dollars if not wasting it on the SCWOD? How many people in the United States can't afford health insurance? Forty million? Fifty million? If the government isn't going to stop wasting that money on the SCWOD (not likely), and if it won't give the taxpayers a tax break (even less likely), then why not tell the government to use that money to provide health insurance for those forty to fifty million people. It wouldn't be top-of-the-line health insurance, to be sure, but it could be good basic health care. And the upside for all those government workers who would be out of a job if there was no SCWOD, is that they could be kept on as worker bees in a bigger and better bureaucracy. (I bet Hilary Clinton would like that.)
What do you say gang, should we march on Washington demanding reason and justice and basic health care for the masses and the end of a stupid, wasteful, unending, and rights-violating "war"? Could we do it? Could we make a difference? . . . Nah. I don't think so. It would be too much trouble and probably wouldn't work anyway. So, okay, forget I said anything. I'll just pop open another can of beer. And, hey? Scrubs is on again. To your health . . . gulp, gulp, gulp!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Oh Wonderful Woman (a poem)
Oh wonderful woman,
So winsome,
But so wily;
You wear upon my will
And tear upon my thrill
Of seeing you and me
Flesh to flesh,
Lips locked in love,
Legs twined
Like fingers in a glove;
And fingers, too,
Touching gently
Our passioned places;
Our bodies writhing with
Sensuous embraces.
All that we can give . . .
This moment . . .
We give now.
Time has stopped,
For all intent,
And we are now.
So winsome,
But so wily;
You wear upon my will
And tear upon my thrill
Of seeing you and me
Flesh to flesh,
Lips locked in love,
Legs twined
Like fingers in a glove;
And fingers, too,
Touching gently
Our passioned places;
Our bodies writhing with
Sensuous embraces.
All that we can give . . .
This moment . . .
We give now.
Time has stopped,
For all intent,
And we are now.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Hypocrisy
Here I go beating one of my favorite drums again. It is, of course, about the insane drug war, that never-ending political devise used to increase government employment roles and make America a worse, not better, place in which to live.
Let us compare just the deaths per year of legal versus illegal drugs. According to a Cato Institute paper (Policy Analysis 121), illegal drug use was responsible for about 8,000 deaths per year. Present estimates from "official" sources are between 15,000 and 18,000 per year.
The legal drug alcohol, which is a true narcotic drug, racks up a score of 200,000 according to Policy Analysis 121, and 80,000 to 100,000 from other sources. Approximately one-half of all murders are committed by people who have been drinking according to the government. That would be about 10,000 murders per year, since the approximate number of murders per year is 20,000. The number of alcohol related auto accidents deaths in 2005, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was 16,885, which was 39% of all motor vehicle fatalities.
Tobacco use kills around 430,000 people every year.
If we take the higher number for illegal drug deaths (18,000), the lower number for alcohol-related deaths (80,000), and the accepted number for tobacco-related deaths (430,000) then we can see that illegal drug deaths are only 3.5 percent of the deaths from legal drugs (18,000 divided by 80,000 + 430,000, or 18 divided by 510 = 0.03529 = 3.5%).
In other writings of mine I have quoted a New York Times Magazine article in which the writer estimated that the actual yearly cost of the so-called war on drugs, for all levels of government, local, state, and federal, comes to 100 billion dollars! That's a whole lot of money for a program that doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work . . . and to try and stop 3.5% of the deaths (from willing users) that legal drugs cause. That's rather like having a broken finger and a broken leg with the bone sticking out, and requiring the doctor to ignore the leg and put all his effort into fixing the finger.
And, of course, a great majority of our politicians (including presidents), prosecutors, police, and judges are all imbibers of that wonderfully deadly drug, alcohol. They pass rights violating anti-drug laws, arrest drug law violators, then prosecute them and imprison them (about one million or so of our present jail and prison population are non-violent, illegal drug offenders) while enjoying one of the most harmful and dangerous drugs known to mankind.
I call that HYPOCRISY!
Let us compare just the deaths per year of legal versus illegal drugs. According to a Cato Institute paper (Policy Analysis 121), illegal drug use was responsible for about 8,000 deaths per year. Present estimates from "official" sources are between 15,000 and 18,000 per year.
The legal drug alcohol, which is a true narcotic drug, racks up a score of 200,000 according to Policy Analysis 121, and 80,000 to 100,000 from other sources. Approximately one-half of all murders are committed by people who have been drinking according to the government. That would be about 10,000 murders per year, since the approximate number of murders per year is 20,000. The number of alcohol related auto accidents deaths in 2005, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was 16,885, which was 39% of all motor vehicle fatalities.
Tobacco use kills around 430,000 people every year.
If we take the higher number for illegal drug deaths (18,000), the lower number for alcohol-related deaths (80,000), and the accepted number for tobacco-related deaths (430,000) then we can see that illegal drug deaths are only 3.5 percent of the deaths from legal drugs (18,000 divided by 80,000 + 430,000, or 18 divided by 510 = 0.03529 = 3.5%).
In other writings of mine I have quoted a New York Times Magazine article in which the writer estimated that the actual yearly cost of the so-called war on drugs, for all levels of government, local, state, and federal, comes to 100 billion dollars! That's a whole lot of money for a program that doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work . . . and to try and stop 3.5% of the deaths (from willing users) that legal drugs cause. That's rather like having a broken finger and a broken leg with the bone sticking out, and requiring the doctor to ignore the leg and put all his effort into fixing the finger.
And, of course, a great majority of our politicians (including presidents), prosecutors, police, and judges are all imbibers of that wonderfully deadly drug, alcohol. They pass rights violating anti-drug laws, arrest drug law violators, then prosecute them and imprison them (about one million or so of our present jail and prison population are non-violent, illegal drug offenders) while enjoying one of the most harmful and dangerous drugs known to mankind.
I call that HYPOCRISY!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Questioning Conventional Wisdom
If the "authorities" say so, does it make it true? Well, who are the "authorities" and who died and left the position to them? Is science supposed to be based on unbiased research, studies, and outcomes?
It seems that sunlight is not our enemy. Gosh, go figure! After evolving through the eons in sunlight, much of the time without clothing, and definitely without sunscreen, it might just be possible that sunlight could be beneficial to us.
New studies, as well as old ones, confirm that sunlight will protect you from the most deadly of skin cancers: melanoma. For more on this subject you might want to go to www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/sunlight-melanoma.html
While we're at it, you might want to question the conventional wisdom of avoiding saturated fats. Our ancient, and not so ancient (like our great grandparents) ancestors ate a lot of red meat, butter, lard, whole milk, and so forth, but it has only been since the last half of the 20th century that heart attacks and cancers increased dramatically. That is the time that processed vegetable oils and highly refined carbohydrates were pushed upon the public by multi-billion dollar food corporations. To read the research backing a book titled Eat Fat Lose Fat go to http://eatfatlosefat.com/research.html.
It seems that sunlight is not our enemy. Gosh, go figure! After evolving through the eons in sunlight, much of the time without clothing, and definitely without sunscreen, it might just be possible that sunlight could be beneficial to us.
New studies, as well as old ones, confirm that sunlight will protect you from the most deadly of skin cancers: melanoma. For more on this subject you might want to go to www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/sunlight-melanoma.html
While we're at it, you might want to question the conventional wisdom of avoiding saturated fats. Our ancient, and not so ancient (like our great grandparents) ancestors ate a lot of red meat, butter, lard, whole milk, and so forth, but it has only been since the last half of the 20th century that heart attacks and cancers increased dramatically. That is the time that processed vegetable oils and highly refined carbohydrates were pushed upon the public by multi-billion dollar food corporations. To read the research backing a book titled Eat Fat Lose Fat go to http://eatfatlosefat.com/research.html.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
TANSTAAFL
I watched some of the utube question and answer session for democratic presidential candidates. It seemed to me that many of the people were confused about certain basic principles. They wanted the government to do more for them, but they wanted to pay less in taxes. Sorry people, you can't have it both ways. If you want to pay less in taxes then you have to become independent and do many things yourself. That's the way the the founding fathers of this nation understood how things should be. The colonists and pioneers of this nation were fiercely independent and wanted the government restrained to certain, well-defined jobs, then to get out of the way of the people so that the people could do for themselves.
Today, it seems, more and more people want the government to do it for them. Well, it can and it is in many, if not most, areas of daily life. But, it will cost you more in taxes. For example: If you don't make an honest attempt at saving for your old age the government will do it for you. It's called social security and you have a social security tax taken out of your paycheck for that purpose. It is now, since the socialist revolution of the 1930's, a mandatory tax. The more that you want the government to do the more money the government must take from you. Remember, the government does not make money--that is, wealth--it takes money, then uses it inefficiently at best.
Sadly, the people of today have all but made the government (The State) into a religion. A political writer of the early part of the Twentieth Century, Albert J. Nock, said in the 1920's that the people now look to the State as the people of the Fifteenth Century looked to the church. He was writing that in the 20's when there were still a high percentage of truly, I-can-do-it-myself, people around. Of course, to do it yourself you need the money in your pocket or bank account, not sent off to the inefficient government to do it for you.
Another political writer, Fredrick Bastiat, a French political economist of the early Nineteenth Century, wrote that everybody wants to be supported by the government; the government, however, is supported by everyone. Everyone wants to crowd in at the feeding trough. When there are, finally, too many at the trough who will be left to bring them the food?
Of course, in the United States we don't have a free enterprise system anymore, and haven't had one for quite some time. There are laws, regulations, licensing requirements, taxes, tariffs, and subsidies enough to strangle any real attempt at free enterprise. Let's face it people, we, here in the United States, have a mixed economy. The biggest part of the mix is socialism--that is, letting the government do it. All the politicians and pundits will vehemently deny this fact, but fact it is. And, as more and more people look to the government to do for them what they should be doing for themselves, this country will become even more socialistic until, finally, it will collapse with too many people on the dole (especially corporate welfare) and to few people supporting them. Because you see folks, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. You either do it yourself, whatever it is, or you pay someone else to do it. And if, by your taxes, you expect the gigantic, slothful, dinosaur that our government has become to do it for you quickly, efficiently, and correctly the first (or second, or third) time, think again. You know full well that the nature of government (workers) is not to do things in an efficient manner.
So, are you an independent person or a dependent person? It's your choice, your time, your taxes. If you want it done and done right, do it yourself or hire a competent person to do it for you. Then tell the government to constrain itself to its true constitutional purpose and get out of the way.
Today, it seems, more and more people want the government to do it for them. Well, it can and it is in many, if not most, areas of daily life. But, it will cost you more in taxes. For example: If you don't make an honest attempt at saving for your old age the government will do it for you. It's called social security and you have a social security tax taken out of your paycheck for that purpose. It is now, since the socialist revolution of the 1930's, a mandatory tax. The more that you want the government to do the more money the government must take from you. Remember, the government does not make money--that is, wealth--it takes money, then uses it inefficiently at best.
Sadly, the people of today have all but made the government (The State) into a religion. A political writer of the early part of the Twentieth Century, Albert J. Nock, said in the 1920's that the people now look to the State as the people of the Fifteenth Century looked to the church. He was writing that in the 20's when there were still a high percentage of truly, I-can-do-it-myself, people around. Of course, to do it yourself you need the money in your pocket or bank account, not sent off to the inefficient government to do it for you.
Another political writer, Fredrick Bastiat, a French political economist of the early Nineteenth Century, wrote that everybody wants to be supported by the government; the government, however, is supported by everyone. Everyone wants to crowd in at the feeding trough. When there are, finally, too many at the trough who will be left to bring them the food?
Of course, in the United States we don't have a free enterprise system anymore, and haven't had one for quite some time. There are laws, regulations, licensing requirements, taxes, tariffs, and subsidies enough to strangle any real attempt at free enterprise. Let's face it people, we, here in the United States, have a mixed economy. The biggest part of the mix is socialism--that is, letting the government do it. All the politicians and pundits will vehemently deny this fact, but fact it is. And, as more and more people look to the government to do for them what they should be doing for themselves, this country will become even more socialistic until, finally, it will collapse with too many people on the dole (especially corporate welfare) and to few people supporting them. Because you see folks, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. You either do it yourself, whatever it is, or you pay someone else to do it. And if, by your taxes, you expect the gigantic, slothful, dinosaur that our government has become to do it for you quickly, efficiently, and correctly the first (or second, or third) time, think again. You know full well that the nature of government (workers) is not to do things in an efficient manner.
So, are you an independent person or a dependent person? It's your choice, your time, your taxes. If you want it done and done right, do it yourself or hire a competent person to do it for you. Then tell the government to constrain itself to its true constitutional purpose and get out of the way.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Government versus control
To govern means to control. In today's America, the government is controlling us more and more. Just how much control (rules, regulations, laws) do you need by a politician, policeman, or bureaucrat? How much do you want to be controlled by these government workers? How do they know what is best for you, where you actions do not physically harm others, the property of others, or otherwise interfere with their rights?
Our pioneering ancestors were independent people, strong and willing and able to do it themselves. Beware of what you ask for...from the government. It may come back (the law of unintended consequences) to bite you. People today are mostly dependent on the government. As Albert J. Nock said many years ago, the people today look to the government as the authority to answer all their problems, like the people in the 15th Century looked to the Catholic Church. And, truly, many of today's laws and legislation have to do with personal moral issues...which should be each adults right to decide, not the State's. Again, just so long as said adult is not violating the rights of others.
The government is not an entity unto itself. It is made up of and run by people. These people are no better and, quite often, much worse than the average person. Why else would they want to be in a position to control us? Other than to ride the "gravy train" of tax-paid jobs, with better pay and benefits than the average worker (who is supporting them) and who are almost impossible to fire no matter how bad they are.
The founding fathers warned us of the kind of government we now have. Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, which go something like this: When the government is afraid of the people you have liberty. When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny. Who among us is not afraid of the government in one way or another? The IRS alone is a major terror factor in many people's lives, but it is not the only government agency that interferes, controls, and terrorizes us.
Our pioneering ancestors were independent people, strong and willing and able to do it themselves. Beware of what you ask for...from the government. It may come back (the law of unintended consequences) to bite you. People today are mostly dependent on the government. As Albert J. Nock said many years ago, the people today look to the government as the authority to answer all their problems, like the people in the 15th Century looked to the Catholic Church. And, truly, many of today's laws and legislation have to do with personal moral issues...which should be each adults right to decide, not the State's. Again, just so long as said adult is not violating the rights of others.
The government is not an entity unto itself. It is made up of and run by people. These people are no better and, quite often, much worse than the average person. Why else would they want to be in a position to control us? Other than to ride the "gravy train" of tax-paid jobs, with better pay and benefits than the average worker (who is supporting them) and who are almost impossible to fire no matter how bad they are.
The founding fathers warned us of the kind of government we now have. Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, which go something like this: When the government is afraid of the people you have liberty. When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny. Who among us is not afraid of the government in one way or another? The IRS alone is a major terror factor in many people's lives, but it is not the only government agency that interferes, controls, and terrorizes us.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Incest in the Bible
Incest is really a bad thing...when it amounts to child molesting. But how bad is it between consenting adults?
Did you know that Abraham and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister? Yep, same father different mothers. That bit of incestuous relationship didn't seem to bother God one bit. After all, He started a whole nation of people from Abraham and Sarah.
Then, what about Lot, Abraham's brother. When Lot and his family got the hell out of Sodom and Gomorrah, because God was destroying it with fire and brimstone (I guess because they weren't very nice people) Lot's wife looked back, which she had been told not to, and was turned into a pillar of salt. A bit harsh for just one wistful look, don't you think. Lot and his two daughter's ended up living in a cave and, because there were no other people around, Lot's daughters cooked up a plan to get dad drunk then have sex with him...to save his "seed." So, they did, he did--ostensible being so drunk he didn't know what he was doing--and his daughters got pregnant and later had baby boys; the founders of the Moabites and Ammonites. (The Bible, King James version, Genesis:19:30-38.)
Okay, besides the incest thing, for which God did nothing (yet He had just destroyed two cities for doing pretty much the same stuff, with a dog and pony show thrown in, and He had killed Lot's wife for just a peek over her shoulder) what really gets me is that we are supposed to believe that Lot's daughters got him drunk on wine then had sex with him without him knowing what he was doing! Who else was there? They were living alone in a cave. If he wasn't passed out then he had to know that the sweet snuggley woman in bed with him was one of his daughters. And, if he was passed out, he couldn't perform. I used to drink a lot, way too much. I have reformed my ways, but when I was too drunk to perform sexually, I was still aware enough to know with whom I was in bed. Then there's the two night's in a row drunk out of your mind on wine. Ooofff! What a hangover. Don't know if they could have got pop's drunk the second night. He might have been puking his guts out all day and begged off. There is another explanation, of course. Lot was a randy old goat, his daughters were horny young women, and there was no one around to object to a little family fun.
In any case, the ban on incest came later in the Bible. It is apparent, if we are to believe the Bible as "the truth", that God has incest among consenting adults low down on the list of no-no's. For instance, besides Abraham and his half-sister wife, and Lot and his daughters, with whom did Adam and Eve and their children have sex with to produce the human race; or Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives after the flood? Hmmmmmmm? Very interesting, no?
Did you know that Abraham and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister? Yep, same father different mothers. That bit of incestuous relationship didn't seem to bother God one bit. After all, He started a whole nation of people from Abraham and Sarah.
Then, what about Lot, Abraham's brother. When Lot and his family got the hell out of Sodom and Gomorrah, because God was destroying it with fire and brimstone (I guess because they weren't very nice people) Lot's wife looked back, which she had been told not to, and was turned into a pillar of salt. A bit harsh for just one wistful look, don't you think. Lot and his two daughter's ended up living in a cave and, because there were no other people around, Lot's daughters cooked up a plan to get dad drunk then have sex with him...to save his "seed." So, they did, he did--ostensible being so drunk he didn't know what he was doing--and his daughters got pregnant and later had baby boys; the founders of the Moabites and Ammonites. (The Bible, King James version, Genesis:19:30-38.)
Okay, besides the incest thing, for which God did nothing (yet He had just destroyed two cities for doing pretty much the same stuff, with a dog and pony show thrown in, and He had killed Lot's wife for just a peek over her shoulder) what really gets me is that we are supposed to believe that Lot's daughters got him drunk on wine then had sex with him without him knowing what he was doing! Who else was there? They were living alone in a cave. If he wasn't passed out then he had to know that the sweet snuggley woman in bed with him was one of his daughters. And, if he was passed out, he couldn't perform. I used to drink a lot, way too much. I have reformed my ways, but when I was too drunk to perform sexually, I was still aware enough to know with whom I was in bed. Then there's the two night's in a row drunk out of your mind on wine. Ooofff! What a hangover. Don't know if they could have got pop's drunk the second night. He might have been puking his guts out all day and begged off. There is another explanation, of course. Lot was a randy old goat, his daughters were horny young women, and there was no one around to object to a little family fun.
In any case, the ban on incest came later in the Bible. It is apparent, if we are to believe the Bible as "the truth", that God has incest among consenting adults low down on the list of no-no's. For instance, besides Abraham and his half-sister wife, and Lot and his daughters, with whom did Adam and Eve and their children have sex with to produce the human race; or Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives after the flood? Hmmmmmmm? Very interesting, no?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Smokin' hot bodies
I like the Nutri-System ads; the mothers who are grandmothers, and others, with smoking hot bodies. I like them because I like to view scantily clad, attractive women...even if they are 40. I'm 60, but I'm in good health and still a full and complete man. But why, I have to ask, would a mother (MILF) and grandmother (GILF?) want to show their sexy bodies to a bunch of horny men...at least half of the viewing public, no? Maybe, they aren't what my mother (may she rest in peace) would call a good little Christian girl. Of course, I'm not a good little Christian boy, which my mother knew and prayed about. I'm a rational hedonist with Libertarian politics and love viewing smoking hot bodies, whether on 20-somethings or 40-somethings...or even, and I have seen them, on 50-somethings. That's what's so good about being an "old fart." One's viewing pleasure for women is of a much wider scope, with greater acceptance, than, say, a 20- or 30-something male.
Go Nutri-System. Let's see more smoking hot bodies of mature women...mothers, grandmothers, married, or single. But you women, think about what kind of message you are sending. You are, in fact, sex images for men you do not know and probably don't want to know.
Go Nutri-System. Let's see more smoking hot bodies of mature women...mothers, grandmothers, married, or single. But you women, think about what kind of message you are sending. You are, in fact, sex images for men you do not know and probably don't want to know.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
SPEED KILLS
That was the message in the sixties: Speed Kills. And it wasn't about driving fast. And the people that were "speed" users (a.k.a. amphetamines and methamphetamines) we called "speed freaks." They were easy to spot. They looked skeletal...rather like the anorexic runway models and certain female celebrities.
The government propaganda is that once hooked by methamphetamine the vast majority of users will be unable to quit...ever. Maybe so, maybe no. Remember the 375,000 "crack" babies being born every year? Babies so mentally damaged in utero by their mother's "crack" abuse that they would always need to be cared for, as in the rest of their lives? Not true in spades.
Meth is bad. (Yes kids, it really does rot your teeth, among other, worse effects.) There is no doubt in my mind of that. But I also know that the government has an agenda to pursue, which isn't always based on truth and justice. I would just like to be able to know what the facts are on addiction rates and recovery rates concerning meth, or what they could be if the government would just get out of the way.
The government propaganda is that once hooked by methamphetamine the vast majority of users will be unable to quit...ever. Maybe so, maybe no. Remember the 375,000 "crack" babies being born every year? Babies so mentally damaged in utero by their mother's "crack" abuse that they would always need to be cared for, as in the rest of their lives? Not true in spades.
Meth is bad. (Yes kids, it really does rot your teeth, among other, worse effects.) There is no doubt in my mind of that. But I also know that the government has an agenda to pursue, which isn't always based on truth and justice. I would just like to be able to know what the facts are on addiction rates and recovery rates concerning meth, or what they could be if the government would just get out of the way.
Friday, February 02, 2007
What Is Truth?
Truth is objective reality. Nothing more, nothing less. But how can such subjective creatures as humans are ever really know objective reality? Logic helps, but only just a little.
I will be offline for a few days, perhaps as much as a month. Of course, that really doesn't matter. I think I've only had one person visit my blog (somewhere joe) or, if anyone else did, they weren't moved to comment. Later..............
I will be offline for a few days, perhaps as much as a month. Of course, that really doesn't matter. I think I've only had one person visit my blog (somewhere joe) or, if anyone else did, they weren't moved to comment. Later..............
Thursday, February 01, 2007
An Excerpt from The Guru Papers
"The 'morality play' solution cannot stand up under close examination. Eternity is a long time. To be damned eternally for succumbing to the powerful temptations that God (though his vehicle Satan) put forth as a test again paints a picture of a harsh, vengeful God who gives the ultimate punishment for disobedience. What caring parent would so test and punish a child? Also, to postulate that God created evil (or to be kinder, allowed it) in order to give humanity the freedom to choose does not explain why God made it much easier for some to choose good than others. Why some are given an easier context (loving parents) to choose good in than others (severely emotionally deprived children) is never adequately addressed. This is an especially poignant issue in Christianity because you only have one chance to do it right.
"Calvinists pushed the argument further in asking if God knew beforehand the choices one would make. For them, to say no would put a limit on the power and knowledge of God. So, if God knew beforehand what choice one would make, it had to have been predetermined. The problem here was why so many people were predetermined to be bad. The Calvinist solution was to emphasize that mankind is essentially evil (original sin) and could only be saved by the grace of God. What was not properly addressed is why some received grace and some did not; and why God would construct a whole species that was born initially evil, and concern himself with whom to save and not to. Being omniscient, there could not even be any mystery in watching the morality play unfold, for God must have known from the get-go who were the few elect he was going to save, and that he was creating a large majority to be damned eternally. this seems like an odd pastime for a God who is all good. From a human standpoint, this does not seem like a very nice thing to do."
The above is from the Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, copyright 1993 by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, published by Frog, Ltd. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
I wholeheartedly agree with what the authors of The Guru Papers have to say. I came to the same conclusion independently, before reading their book, by the use of logic.
"Calvinists pushed the argument further in asking if God knew beforehand the choices one would make. For them, to say no would put a limit on the power and knowledge of God. So, if God knew beforehand what choice one would make, it had to have been predetermined. The problem here was why so many people were predetermined to be bad. The Calvinist solution was to emphasize that mankind is essentially evil (original sin) and could only be saved by the grace of God. What was not properly addressed is why some received grace and some did not; and why God would construct a whole species that was born initially evil, and concern himself with whom to save and not to. Being omniscient, there could not even be any mystery in watching the morality play unfold, for God must have known from the get-go who were the few elect he was going to save, and that he was creating a large majority to be damned eternally. this seems like an odd pastime for a God who is all good. From a human standpoint, this does not seem like a very nice thing to do."
The above is from the Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, copyright 1993 by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, published by Frog, Ltd. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
I wholeheartedly agree with what the authors of The Guru Papers have to say. I came to the same conclusion independently, before reading their book, by the use of logic.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The New Socialists
My good friend Rycke (pronounced Reeka) sent me the following some time ago. She and I think very much alike about many subjects, but especially about government; that it should secure rights, not violate them. Rycke sent me this message, but she was responding to a question in an email from another of her friends.
"Where do you go from here? If, as you say, it should be unacceptable to society that children are homeless, what would you do about it? What should society do about it?
"Society, not government. They are separate spheres of influence. Society is voluntary interactions between people, the 'private' realm. When people use force against one another in the private realm, they are being anti-social.
"Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. It is the realm of forced interactions. Nearly everything it does is funded by force, so if you ask it to do anything, your are forcing others to pay for it, even if you pay for it, too. The only proper use of force is for defense of self and others: securing rights. '[T]o secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,' the Declaration says. government exists to protect society from its anti-social elements, who use fore and fraud against their fellows.
"When government expands beyond that purpose, when it's allowed to fund or do anything that enough of the right people think is a good idea, it becomes anti-social, because it is using force improperly and intruding on the social realm. It's pretty anti-social to force other people to fund your pet charity, or your business, or your lifestyle. It's pretty anti-social to tell other people how to run their businesses, apart from punishing fraud and noxious pollution. It's pretty anti-social to force other people to send their children to your schools, or to force other people to fund those schools. It's pretty anti-social to tell other people that they can't make, use, or possess particular substances; bust into their homes to search for those substances; kidnap them, steal their goods and money, and keep them in captive slavery, just for having those substances.
"Many people who support such things have called themselves socialists. But really, they and many of their so-called 'conservative' brethren are anti-socialists.
"As government grows beyond its proper bounds, society withers. As the use of force expands, voluntary social interaction is constrained. Those of us who want to restrict government to securing rights thereby want society to take back its realm from government. We are the new socialists."
"Where do you go from here? If, as you say, it should be unacceptable to society that children are homeless, what would you do about it? What should society do about it?
"Society, not government. They are separate spheres of influence. Society is voluntary interactions between people, the 'private' realm. When people use force against one another in the private realm, they are being anti-social.
"Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. It is the realm of forced interactions. Nearly everything it does is funded by force, so if you ask it to do anything, your are forcing others to pay for it, even if you pay for it, too. The only proper use of force is for defense of self and others: securing rights. '[T]o secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,' the Declaration says. government exists to protect society from its anti-social elements, who use fore and fraud against their fellows.
"When government expands beyond that purpose, when it's allowed to fund or do anything that enough of the right people think is a good idea, it becomes anti-social, because it is using force improperly and intruding on the social realm. It's pretty anti-social to force other people to fund your pet charity, or your business, or your lifestyle. It's pretty anti-social to tell other people how to run their businesses, apart from punishing fraud and noxious pollution. It's pretty anti-social to force other people to send their children to your schools, or to force other people to fund those schools. It's pretty anti-social to tell other people that they can't make, use, or possess particular substances; bust into their homes to search for those substances; kidnap them, steal their goods and money, and keep them in captive slavery, just for having those substances.
"Many people who support such things have called themselves socialists. But really, they and many of their so-called 'conservative' brethren are anti-socialists.
"As government grows beyond its proper bounds, society withers. As the use of force expands, voluntary social interaction is constrained. Those of us who want to restrict government to securing rights thereby want society to take back its realm from government. We are the new socialists."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Breast-feeding...In Public! Oh My God!
Today I read an article by Debbie Cafazzo, an MSNBC contributor, about the debate, if it can be called that, over breast-feeding in public: "Food or lewd? Breast-feeding reveals divide."
Personally, I don't understand the problem. But then, as my url says "logic-v-emotion." I try to come down on the logic side whenever I can. Breast-feeding is, of course, logical. Mother's milk is the best food for a baby. It was designed (if you believe in a creator god) or evolved (if you don't) as the only food a baby could eat before the modern era. It's full of all sorts of good things like lauric acid--a saturated fat that boosts the baby's immune system (and which soy product substitutes don't have). Mother's milk is also rich in cholesterol, which is necessary for healthy physical and mental development. Babies get hungry when they get hungry and have to be fed at that time, whether it is in public or at home.
Judaism and Christianity have played a major role in the illogical, emotionally-based reaction to public nudity in general and to public breast-feeding in particular. It started out with the Adam and Eve myth, where they eat of the fruit of knowledge and realize that they are...naked! Then, when Christianity took over as the State Religion in Rome in the 4th century, the idea of nudity as nudity being sinful gradually came to be accepted. Hell, even in the early part of the 20th century exposed male nipples were considered to be indecent.
Underneath our clothes, we are all naked. (Oh my God, don't tell me that. That is just so disgusting.) Nudity is a state of nature and it is not evil, sinful, indecent, or obscene. It's just our natural bodies and skin. Men's bodies and women's bodies have not changed noticeably in couple hundred thousand years, or more. So what is the big deal? When you make a body part sinful, then it become sexual. As a comedian, years ago, pointed out, if we considered women's earlobes to be sexual objects, like we do breasts, then women would be required to cover them up in public.
Come on people. Babies deserve mother's milk, if mom can breast-feed (not all can). And a naked breast is not big deal, especially when feeding a baby. In nudist colonies the sight of all those breasts and genitalia, day-after-day, certainly doesn't cause a sexual frenzy. If you believe that public breast-feeding is sinful, indecent, or otherwise wrong, you are one illogical and emotionally reactive person.
Personally, I don't understand the problem. But then, as my url says "logic-v-emotion." I try to come down on the logic side whenever I can. Breast-feeding is, of course, logical. Mother's milk is the best food for a baby. It was designed (if you believe in a creator god) or evolved (if you don't) as the only food a baby could eat before the modern era. It's full of all sorts of good things like lauric acid--a saturated fat that boosts the baby's immune system (and which soy product substitutes don't have). Mother's milk is also rich in cholesterol, which is necessary for healthy physical and mental development. Babies get hungry when they get hungry and have to be fed at that time, whether it is in public or at home.
Judaism and Christianity have played a major role in the illogical, emotionally-based reaction to public nudity in general and to public breast-feeding in particular. It started out with the Adam and Eve myth, where they eat of the fruit of knowledge and realize that they are...naked! Then, when Christianity took over as the State Religion in Rome in the 4th century, the idea of nudity as nudity being sinful gradually came to be accepted. Hell, even in the early part of the 20th century exposed male nipples were considered to be indecent.
Underneath our clothes, we are all naked. (Oh my God, don't tell me that. That is just so disgusting.) Nudity is a state of nature and it is not evil, sinful, indecent, or obscene. It's just our natural bodies and skin. Men's bodies and women's bodies have not changed noticeably in couple hundred thousand years, or more. So what is the big deal? When you make a body part sinful, then it become sexual. As a comedian, years ago, pointed out, if we considered women's earlobes to be sexual objects, like we do breasts, then women would be required to cover them up in public.
Come on people. Babies deserve mother's milk, if mom can breast-feed (not all can). And a naked breast is not big deal, especially when feeding a baby. In nudist colonies the sight of all those breasts and genitalia, day-after-day, certainly doesn't cause a sexual frenzy. If you believe that public breast-feeding is sinful, indecent, or otherwise wrong, you are one illogical and emotionally reactive person.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Here's a Trick Question
Do UFO's exit? If so, what are they? The first person with the correct answers, will win a free copy of my "The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality." E-mail, D.M. Mitchell at todscwaml@hotmail.com. (Damn! this is too easy...why do I give out clues?)
The Myth of Rights: Property Taxes
When it comes to buying real estate, you can never truly and fully own that property. Property tax is the reason why. If you pay off the mortgage, if you own the property free and clear, you will still have to pay an annual tax on that property, merely for owning it. If you don't pay that tax, the government will take it away from you...and government agents will use deadly force if necessary. So, in reality, the property that you think you own you are actually renting from the government. The government is the true owner.
But, you say, the government needs money to operate and property taxes are a major source of their revenues. Sure, but just how much government do we need? If you have an automobile and use the roads, okay then, gasoline tax and vehicle registration tax to pay for the roads is fine by me. If you use the city water, sewer, and waste removal services, then fine, a tax for services rendered is great. Same for the police and fire departments, which we may not always need, but definitely want to be there when we do need those services. And, if you, or your children are going to school, you have to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch (TINSTAAFL). By all that is logical and right, those who use the government provided services should pay for them, but for nothing more. (This could be a way to reduce the size of government and governmental waste.)
I'm not against a sales tax on property. After all, if I buy a shirt I will pay a sales tax. But I won't pay it again the next year merely for owning that shirt, so why should real estate be taxed indefinitely just because it exists? And then there is the issue of retired people on fixed incomes not being able to afford to pay the ever-increasing property tax on their paid-off real estate and having to sell the home they have lived in for 40 or 50 years, one in which they raised their children and put a lot of tender loving care into.
"Yeah, that's right old folks. You have to sell your home and move to some crappy apartment...and we don't give a sh**, because we are the taxmen...we are the government...and we actually own this place. So, pack up and get out, or we'll throw you out!"
Hey! That's happened...many times.
A sales tax on real estate could be high, in the double digits, and could be paid in yearly amounts over the length of the mortgage. Examples: Real estate = $100,000 times 75% = $75,000 divided by 30 years = $2500 per year. $200,000 times 75% = $150,000 divided by 30 years = $5,000 per year. $500,000 times 75% = $375,000 divided by 30 years = $12,500 per year. And, of course, if a house gets sold for a higher price--and real estate values always go up over time--then the tax gets refigured to the new, higher amount.
But--and this is a very important but in a truly free and liberty-loving society--if and when the mortgage is paid off, and the taxes paid too, then the real estate should be free and clear and the owner should truly be the owner of that property. It would be a "freehold." Is this likely to happen? Hell no! And that, my friends, is why I say that the concept of "rights" is only a myth. If you cannot freely own property without fear of the government taking it away from you because of an on-going, never-ending tax lien, then you really don't own that property and you will never have that "right"...among others.
But, you say, the government needs money to operate and property taxes are a major source of their revenues. Sure, but just how much government do we need? If you have an automobile and use the roads, okay then, gasoline tax and vehicle registration tax to pay for the roads is fine by me. If you use the city water, sewer, and waste removal services, then fine, a tax for services rendered is great. Same for the police and fire departments, which we may not always need, but definitely want to be there when we do need those services. And, if you, or your children are going to school, you have to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch (TINSTAAFL). By all that is logical and right, those who use the government provided services should pay for them, but for nothing more. (This could be a way to reduce the size of government and governmental waste.)
I'm not against a sales tax on property. After all, if I buy a shirt I will pay a sales tax. But I won't pay it again the next year merely for owning that shirt, so why should real estate be taxed indefinitely just because it exists? And then there is the issue of retired people on fixed incomes not being able to afford to pay the ever-increasing property tax on their paid-off real estate and having to sell the home they have lived in for 40 or 50 years, one in which they raised their children and put a lot of tender loving care into.
"Yeah, that's right old folks. You have to sell your home and move to some crappy apartment...and we don't give a sh**, because we are the taxmen...we are the government...and we actually own this place. So, pack up and get out, or we'll throw you out!"
Hey! That's happened...many times.
A sales tax on real estate could be high, in the double digits, and could be paid in yearly amounts over the length of the mortgage. Examples: Real estate = $100,000 times 75% = $75,000 divided by 30 years = $2500 per year. $200,000 times 75% = $150,000 divided by 30 years = $5,000 per year. $500,000 times 75% = $375,000 divided by 30 years = $12,500 per year. And, of course, if a house gets sold for a higher price--and real estate values always go up over time--then the tax gets refigured to the new, higher amount.
But--and this is a very important but in a truly free and liberty-loving society--if and when the mortgage is paid off, and the taxes paid too, then the real estate should be free and clear and the owner should truly be the owner of that property. It would be a "freehold." Is this likely to happen? Hell no! And that, my friends, is why I say that the concept of "rights" is only a myth. If you cannot freely own property without fear of the government taking it away from you because of an on-going, never-ending tax lien, then you really don't own that property and you will never have that "right"...among others.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Excerpts from My Essay: "The Myth of Inaliendable Rights . . . ."
The mere use of the presently illegal drugs does not cause crime, that is, violent or larcenous behavior. Many of the presently illegal drugs were legally available at the beginning of the 20th Century. There was no criminal justice problem associated with their use. There still are no large studies correlating drug use with real criminal, rights-violating behavior. Such studies just do not exist.
If it is your inalienable right to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco, even though they may cause you harm, then it must also be your equal right to use any other chemical substance you wish, even though those substances may also cause you harm. Inalienable rights are not “allowed” or “given out” by the government. Inalienable rights are yours because you exist. However, you have no right to harm other people, or the property of other people, unless it is in the defense of yourself, your loved ones, your property, or innocent others.
But the issue here is really not about the use or possible abuse of mind-altering or addictive drugs, alcohol and tobacco included. The issue here is about the absolute and inalienable right to choose how you want to live your life. It’s about your own personal moral code. It’s about having the right to behave any way you choose, just so long as you do not violate the rights of others. That’s what a truly free and liberty-loving society is all about. If you don’t have that right, even if it means choosing drugs, then you are not a truly free and independent citizen even if you choose not to use drugs, and all the talk about rights is a myth. If the government has the legitimate power to outlaw personal moral behavior that does not harm or endanger others, then what is it that the government can’t outlaw if it had a majority of legislators voting for it? The precedent set in the war on drugs is more than dangerous. It has the very real potential to be, eventually, absolutely deadly to true freedom and liberty.
(Beware pure democracy, an example of which is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Inalienable rights are not up for a majority vote, or for any vote at all.)
If it is your inalienable right to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco, even though they may cause you harm, then it must also be your equal right to use any other chemical substance you wish, even though those substances may also cause you harm. Inalienable rights are not “allowed” or “given out” by the government. Inalienable rights are yours because you exist. However, you have no right to harm other people, or the property of other people, unless it is in the defense of yourself, your loved ones, your property, or innocent others.
But the issue here is really not about the use or possible abuse of mind-altering or addictive drugs, alcohol and tobacco included. The issue here is about the absolute and inalienable right to choose how you want to live your life. It’s about your own personal moral code. It’s about having the right to behave any way you choose, just so long as you do not violate the rights of others. That’s what a truly free and liberty-loving society is all about. If you don’t have that right, even if it means choosing drugs, then you are not a truly free and independent citizen even if you choose not to use drugs, and all the talk about rights is a myth. If the government has the legitimate power to outlaw personal moral behavior that does not harm or endanger others, then what is it that the government can’t outlaw if it had a majority of legislators voting for it? The precedent set in the war on drugs is more than dangerous. It has the very real potential to be, eventually, absolutely deadly to true freedom and liberty.
(Beware pure democracy, an example of which is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Inalienable rights are not up for a majority vote, or for any vote at all.)
Saturday, January 27, 2007
In Answer to "somewhere joe"
I was asked a couple of questions about my last post by "somewhere joe." The following is my answer to those questions.
Olive oil is a monounsaturate oil, which is actually rather healthy. That's why it's been used for thousands of years. The biggest problems are the polyunsaturates such as corn, safflower, or canola oils. They don't take high heat very well. It will create a high percentage of free radicals, which are absolutely bad for us. Monounsaturates are better for cooking, but best eaten uncooked. The naturally saturated fats such as lard, tallow, and coconut oils are much more stable at high heats. Also, coconut oil, butter, and mother's milk contain lauric acid, a saturated fat that helps to fight bad bacteria. Mother's milk also contains a high percentage of cholesterol, a necessary element for proper growth and mental development. There are other beneficial agents in naturally saturated fats too. Then, there is the Framingham Massachusetts Heart Study in which the director of the study had to admit that the people who ate the most saturated fat, calories, and cholesterol were the healthiest, with the most energy, and who lived the longest with the least problems.
As to life spans, where would the average pill-popping "senior" today be without the pills, surgery, and other life-extending medical intervention that did not exist in our grandfather's and great-grandfather's day? I believe that our present life-span has been "propped up", so to speak, by modern medicine, and that we would live even longer if we ate natural foods rather than the processed foods of today, full of sugar, white flour, and polyunsaturated fats, but that without modern medical intervention our life spans would be no better, maybe worse than that of our grandfathers.
Further, I once did my own (unscientific) survey of famous people born 200 years ago or more; people like Ben Franklin. I found a high percentage that lived well into their 70's and 80's. Of course, these were the more wealthy people of society who had access to sufficient food and a wider variety variety of foods than the average person. Basically, in the "bad old days", if you didn't die from a childhood disease, a plague, had a serious injury or wound, especially if you had access to a variety of good nutritious foods, you could live to be as old as anyone today, maybe longer.
But don't take my word for it. Click on the Weston A. Price Foundation site in my previous post and have a look around.
Olive oil is a monounsaturate oil, which is actually rather healthy. That's why it's been used for thousands of years. The biggest problems are the polyunsaturates such as corn, safflower, or canola oils. They don't take high heat very well. It will create a high percentage of free radicals, which are absolutely bad for us. Monounsaturates are better for cooking, but best eaten uncooked. The naturally saturated fats such as lard, tallow, and coconut oils are much more stable at high heats. Also, coconut oil, butter, and mother's milk contain lauric acid, a saturated fat that helps to fight bad bacteria. Mother's milk also contains a high percentage of cholesterol, a necessary element for proper growth and mental development. There are other beneficial agents in naturally saturated fats too. Then, there is the Framingham Massachusetts Heart Study in which the director of the study had to admit that the people who ate the most saturated fat, calories, and cholesterol were the healthiest, with the most energy, and who lived the longest with the least problems.
As to life spans, where would the average pill-popping "senior" today be without the pills, surgery, and other life-extending medical intervention that did not exist in our grandfather's and great-grandfather's day? I believe that our present life-span has been "propped up", so to speak, by modern medicine, and that we would live even longer if we ate natural foods rather than the processed foods of today, full of sugar, white flour, and polyunsaturated fats, but that without modern medical intervention our life spans would be no better, maybe worse than that of our grandfathers.
Further, I once did my own (unscientific) survey of famous people born 200 years ago or more; people like Ben Franklin. I found a high percentage that lived well into their 70's and 80's. Of course, these were the more wealthy people of society who had access to sufficient food and a wider variety variety of foods than the average person. Basically, in the "bad old days", if you didn't die from a childhood disease, a plague, had a serious injury or wound, especially if you had access to a variety of good nutritious foods, you could live to be as old as anyone today, maybe longer.
But don't take my word for it. Click on the Weston A. Price Foundation site in my previous post and have a look around.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
How Healthy Are Polyunsaturated Fats?
"Healthy subjects placed on high polyunsaturated diets for four-week periods have exhibited higher levels of free radical activity and blood clotting markers than those on high-saturated diets. In animal studies, polyunsaturated vegetable oils consistently promote cancer growth; an eight-year trial with real live humans that observed significantly higher cancer incidence in the polyunsaturated group suggests this phenomenon is not merely confined to lab rats.1 This same study, by the way, showed little difference in extent of atherosclerosis among autopsied subjects from the high-saturate and high-polyunsaturate diets. If anything, the aortas of those eating the polyunsaturated-enhanced diet tended to show more plaque build-up.
"1. Dayton S, et al. A controlled clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications of atherosclerosis. Circulation, 1969; XL: II-1-63."
The above was taken from the end of an article by Chris Masterjohn, Saturated Fat Attack, at the Weston A. Price Foundation site: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/saturated-fat-attack.html. It was written, as a comment, by Anthony Colpo, author of The Great Cholesterol Con, a book which exposes the fallacy of the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Mr. Colpo says he has no financial ties or responsibility to any food, drug, medical, or supplement businesses.
History shows that the incidence of cancer and heart disease was low 100 years ago when our grandparents and great-grandparents were eating a high saturated fat diet. Only with the promotion of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, especially hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated ones, which started in the 1940’s, did the epidemic of those two diseases begin. The processed foods industries, including highly processed vegetable oils, are multi-billion dollar per year concerns…and they are concerned with making money, not your health. Go to the above link to the Weston A. Price Foundation and look around. It could be good for you…very good.
"1. Dayton S, et al. A controlled clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications of atherosclerosis. Circulation, 1969; XL: II-1-63."
The above was taken from the end of an article by Chris Masterjohn, Saturated Fat Attack, at the Weston A. Price Foundation site: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/saturated-fat-attack.html. It was written, as a comment, by Anthony Colpo, author of The Great Cholesterol Con, a book which exposes the fallacy of the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Mr. Colpo says he has no financial ties or responsibility to any food, drug, medical, or supplement businesses.
History shows that the incidence of cancer and heart disease was low 100 years ago when our grandparents and great-grandparents were eating a high saturated fat diet. Only with the promotion of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, especially hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated ones, which started in the 1940’s, did the epidemic of those two diseases begin. The processed foods industries, including highly processed vegetable oils, are multi-billion dollar per year concerns…and they are concerned with making money, not your health. Go to the above link to the Weston A. Price Foundation and look around. It could be good for you…very good.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Question 10 from my 52 Perverse Questions
10. Assume you are an extremely bigoted, anti-gay heterosexual. You must choose between (A) having your infant son grow up to be an out-of-the-closet, openly gay man, but one who will be able to avoid any serious diseases and who will live a long and happy life, dying peacefully at the age of 90, or (B) he will grow up to be a strong heterosexual, but at age 25 he will go to prison for 25 years, after which he will go on to live another 25 years with less than average happiness and health.
My 52 PQ's are more than just perverse* questions. They are a call to question authority for the sake of authority, and to use logic versus emotion to guide one through the greater part of life. What is right and wrong behavior? How do we decide? Do we just accept what we have been told without thinking about it or do we think for ourselves, using logic, then decide? The questions, many of them sexual and controversial in nature, are designed to allow one to act (the use of logic) rather than to react (the use of emotion); to actually stop and think about what constitutes right and wrong behavior and why is it right or wrong.
* Perverse: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary)
My 52 PQ's are more than just perverse* questions. They are a call to question authority for the sake of authority, and to use logic versus emotion to guide one through the greater part of life. What is right and wrong behavior? How do we decide? Do we just accept what we have been told without thinking about it or do we think for ourselves, using logic, then decide? The questions, many of them sexual and controversial in nature, are designed to allow one to act (the use of logic) rather than to react (the use of emotion); to actually stop and think about what constitutes right and wrong behavior and why is it right or wrong.
* Perverse: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
