|
Send Comments
and Tips to:
Bob Smith
December 2003 |
Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
Nov
Jan
Home
About Smith & his blog
Published By:
|
|
| Tuesday, December 2, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
 |
|
| Slick lies or clumsy lies - which do you prefer? (Part 1) |
|
 Before W there was Bill. I've been trying to decide which is worse... to have a President who's a compulsive but convincing liar, or to have one one whose lies aren't even believable to start with. Tough choice, isn't it?
Libertarians are perhaps naive. They believe that honesty is essential, even if it doesn't produce the hoped-for results. Straussians and socialists, on the other hand, believe that "normal people" in a free society will take the truth and make bad decisions. They believe that elite leaders must show the way, force good results to happen... and they're not reluctant to tell lies to the people in an attempt to get the results they want.
Why do libertarians hold to the truth when it doesn't seem to work for them?
Libertarians understand that the good result can only be accomplished when the great majority of people understand what they're doing and why they're doing it. They must understand it well enough to recognize when it is being threatened, and they must care enough to fight the threat.
Libertarians don't, for example, just want government drastically reduced in size, we believe that people must understand why it must be reduced, and the effects it will have. For libertarians, good results cannot be achieved through political power (no force, no fraud), but only by convincing citizens of the rightness of those good results... and that can only be done by convincing them of the truth.
While most other groups seek the power to impose their "truth" on us, libertarians don't even want that power. Such power is inimical to the achievement of our goals. So, when one asks, "why don't the libertarians have more power?" you should understand that it isn't a failure, it's a normal result of the process we must employ to achieve what we want.
Libertarians knew, both instinctively and rationally, that imposing a democracy on Iraq could not succeed... for the same reasons that imposing our ideology on the American citizenry could not succeed. For a free society to be successful, the citizenry MUST understand and accept the basis of freedom. If neccessary, they must fight for it. There can be no such thing as an ignorant free society.
Libertarians are, therefore, constrained to the limits of an educational process, and a very difficult one at that, for these reasons:
1. Our opposition has no hesitation in telling lies to achieve their ends.
2. Those in power control the public school system and its curriculum.
3. Our opposition uses false fears to scare the public into accepting domination.
4. Media participates in those scare tactics because fear generates readership.
5. Media repeats lies because they need those who are powerful.
6. Americans have a belief that power results from being right.
7. Americans don't think much about government and politics.
The last reason is the one that causes me most concern, because an unthinking populace is doomed to be taken advantage of. Like most libertarians, I have confidence in the wisdom of my fellow citizens... if and when they actually think... and a little serious thinking is required in order to find a way out of the mess we've allowed to happen.
We have mammoth government on both the federal and state levels. It got that way because we allowed it to, by listening to bullshit and accepting it as truth... by not thinking about it. We've bought the "free lunch" pitch decade after decade... we've bought blatant lies by refusing to question them. We've fallen for the "keep the worse guys out of office" pitch. We've responded to guilt-trips about the poor, helpless and children, ignoring the fact that government will not take care of them no matter what they do. We've responded to false fears by giving more money to power-mongers. We've even adopted a political party like we would a favorite football team, and cheered blindly for their successes, no matter how destructive they might have been.
How anyone can support the policies of the current administration is, frankly, beyond my comprehension. Even in my deepest past GOP stupor, Bush's actions would have driven me away. Those who think of themselves as Democrats can see how horrible the Bush administration is, but will they also realize and admit that the Bush administration could have been patterned after the Lyndon Johnson or Kennedy administrations? Will they admit that both were built on lies and false promises? Will they admit that their Democratic legislators are also responsible for the current mess?
Will Democrats comprehend that their pathetic Clinton/Gore heroes made it possible for such an incompetent to be elected? America could choose W only because the choice was so poor. Talk about being forced to choose the lesser of two evils!
Tomorrow in Part 2 - A plea to accept the ONLY solution available to us. |
|
# -- Posted 12/2/03; 12:01:29 AM
|
 |
|
| Monday, December 1, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| The Missing Link |
|
By Chris Basten
Usually clichés are found to be true in certain contexts. Though we collectively roll our eyes at them, we tend to find something about them that strikes home for us. And then there are other times when clichés are insulting and downright inappropriate. "United We Stand" occurs as one of those clichés that just does not hold true anymore. America is a deeply divided country on many fronts and it is reflected in our shady, manipulative politics. "United We Stand" or "One Nation Under God" may look patriotic as bumper stickers on a rusted-out Chevy truck or as signs in a local hardware store, but these vestiges from the Cold War are tired expressions that ring hollow in our ears. America isn't sure of anything that unites us anymore. We're too busy squabbling for politically-correct scraps at the oversized trough full of frivolous lawsuits. "Oink-Oink" sounds more appropriate for America than "United We Stand" does.
When other countries are asked to cite how they feel about America, they usually think admirably of our fondness for freedom and opportunity but frown at our greedy misgivings and intrusiveness in foreign affairs. Ironically, Americans tend to feel the same way. We know that America is something special but we're not quite sure why. Most immigrants never had true freedom until they arrived on American soil. In the U.S., immigrants accustomed to warfare, poverty, and political strife in their homelands can now own their own homes, work in good jobs, and practice their religion as they please. The freedom that most immigrants have may be the one glaring positive that still registers as truly American anymore.
Praise of anything American nowadays has been engulfed by an "us-vs.-them" mentality. We've become easily distracted about who is right and who is wrong rather than what the truth actually is. The media has inundated us all with toxic levels of Iraq coverage, so much so that most laypeople no longer care to listen to it anymore. When this happens, the press becomes ineffective in alerting us to other freedoms that are being lost to Government bureaucrats who get richer and richer from our malaise and ignorance. America is no longer governed by the people and most of us gave up caring a long time ago.
Above all of the bickering, backstabbing, and eye-gouging, there is one thing left that most Americans agree on. Above the privileged white men in suits and ties fighting for federal marriage amendments, arguing about the right to display the Ten Commandments, appeasing people who tie up the court system with petty lawsuits, blaming liberals for the downfall of society, admonishing conservatives for a near-state of martial law, crying about our lost Judeo-Christian roots and "God-haters" taking over the world, one agreement sits in front of us that we refuse to acknowledge. If we would stop finger-pointing for two seconds and look at how our "us-vs.-them" accusations aren't working, we would find what it is that we can all come to an understanding on: we're all losing our freedom.
Endless political feuding that engages in choosing one side over the other is probably the largest barrier to individual rights today, not terrorism. If we continue to separate ourselves on such extremist lines of demarcation, we all lose to Big Government. Federal laws are settling everything for us because we choose not to do it in our own local courts. The amount of federal court cases has ballooned exponentially in the past few years because we refuse to be responsible for governing our own disagreements. As long as we decline to govern ourselves the way we were meant to, Government will step in and govern for us and take freedoms away from everyone because we couldn't negotiate our lives on our own. Because we want so badly to show everyone else how right we are and how wrong the other side is, we will hold out for federal intervention to prove it even if it means that everyone loses freedom in the end. "Oink-Oink" indeed.
So if the liberals, conservatives, centrists, libertarians, anarchists, reformers, and everyone else in between would slow down and look at what we're all losing, perhaps we could find what is the missing link: freedom. Freedom may not be a tangible device that we can hold in the palm of our hands but it is a concept that we all aspire to have realized in our lives. Though this country of ours may be highly divisive, we can all find unity in appreciating what we do have in common. The Declaration of Independence says it this way:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Do we all want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Then we have to stop with our petty arguments like the Founding Fathers did and realize that we can form together what Government is unabashedly taking away from us: the freedom to be on our own. The Government cannot tell us how to live if we settle our disputes privately. This is how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is obtained. When Government is raised to a parental authority, the kids are not alright. The great American experiment is still in progress. We just have to stop being so right about our points of view in order to realize that we all want the same thing. Freedom will continue to be the missing link that unites us; it's right under our noses. |
|
# -- Posted 12/1/03; 12:01:02 AM
|
|
|
| Friday, November 28, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| Seek and ye shall find |
|
More accurately these days... SEARCH and ye shall find... almost anything you can think of. Today's web search engines, most notably Google's, are truly remarkable in the amount of information indexed and the speed with which all that information can be searched and retrieved. Google now has more than 3 billion web pages in it's index. 174 million households now have internet access, and spend an average of 17 hours/month online.
Take note of the fact that these remarkable search capabilities are completely FREE... not provided by government, not supported by taxes or hidden fees, but provided as part of the great free market.
Just for a little personal horn-tootin'... "no force" will return No Force, No Fraud in 1st place on Google, Alexa, Yahoo, Dogpile, and WebCrawler searches.
It has become virtually impossible to search for any word, name, or combination and get no results. Here are a few examples, using Google:
libertarian - returns 1,030,000 references
gadzooks - returns 32,700 references
shazam - returns 134,000 references
dingbat - returns 65,200 references
duh - returns 1,720,000 references
antidisestablishmentarianism - returns 13,200 references
babelogue - returns 10,100 references
Even when I tried to stretch it, using names of tiny towns where I grew up:
wellman iowa - returns 30,800 (population 1,393 and my birthplace)
kalona iowa - returns 33,700 (population 2,293 and where I attended high school)
riverside iowa - returns 801,000 (the population is only 824, but James T. Kirk, captain of the starship Enterprise, will be born there on March 21, 2233)
The software we use here at Babelogue shows us where some of our readers come from, including searches that brought them. Here are some of the recent searches that brought readers to No Force, No Fraud, linked to the articles their searches took them to:
penn teller liberal conservative
"normal crime"
prisoner's dilemma gas station
immigrants and taking jobs
"Victimless Crimes"
WWII veterans greatest generation
total taxes we pay. what are the numbers
victimless crimes and cases+2003+prostitution
social game theory "turn the other cheek"
KEEP .10 BAC not .08 minnesota
Cherewatenko
prisoner's dilemma gas station
h&R; Block and "Ad Council"
"You might be a libertarian"
social giveaway programs
Can private charity take over all government social programs
non-violent criminals in the Federal prison system refer to congress
Dr.vern Cherewatenko/
no fraud logo
fatal car accidents because of sleep
famous criminals and ADHD
painless ways to commit suicide
MJNO
japan after surrender
georgia divorce cellphone law
intellectual property not freemarket
Smith Statism
medicare paperwork fix problem cost
don't throw me in to the briar patch means
working class neighborhood appearance
adultry crime illegal
+"milton friedman" +playboy +interview
racial hatred crime FBI
fake boobs video
spousal fraud
rev zandstra acton institute
space $10 million reward
Force No AS
Taxation germany
john fink
nevada law + habitual criminal
victimless crimes - society
hack into police records
If you want become more expert in finding more precisely what you're looking for, here are 20 great Google tips, from PC Magazine.
|
|
# -- Posted 11/28/03; 12:02:28 AM
|
|
|
| Thursday, November 27, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| L-tryptohan and American Indifference |
|
By Chris Basten
 Thanksgiving is the one day where I allow myself the luxury of vegetating and stuffing my pie-hole. No one can stop me from binging-it's truly American, damnit! I refuse to put anything on my plate (physically or metaphorically) other than turkey. White or dark meat makes no difference to me as long as it ends up in my belly.
After I've vacuumed cranberry sauce, wheat rolls, mashed potatoes and gravy, and absurd amounts of bird into my tank, I plop myself onto the couch, watch football, and curse the pilgrims and Native Americans for inventing a holiday so scrumptious and painful at the same time. After about one quarter of watching athletes toss the pigskin around, the L-tryptophan starts to kick in and I pass out off-and-on for the rest of the day while groaning in discomfort between naps.
L-tryptophan, the naturally-occurring protein found in turkey, can make one quite drunk with sleepiness for the duration of Thanksgiving if consumed in high quantities. When you include gluttony to the equation, you end up feeling like Elvis in his latter days.
Thanksgiving can be an ironic analogy that represents American culture. We stuff our lives full of SUVs, nice clothes, refinanced mortgages, toys for the kids, lots and lots of TV-watching, credit card debt, and endless political propaganda. Like moist Butterballs bent over to take plenty of stuffing, Americans get bloated with a lot of empty "filler." When our lives are hectic, exhausting escapades that keep a roof over our heads and food on the table, we tend to easily dismiss a larger turkey: Big Government.
Who really has time to pay attention to, much less care, what Washington does with its time?! There are jobs to work, kids to clothe and feed, houses to clean, errands to run, plenty of bills to pay, and families to support. U.S. citizens have too much clutter in their lives as it is to keep up with a juggernaut Government that makes our heads hurt all the more.
I get ornery frequently (imagine that!) with those who are more concerned about petty things than how our government crams us with the "stuffing" that takes away our individual rights. "People should care," I tell myself. But what used to appear to me as American indifference or ignorance (though plenty of that exists) now shows up in a new light.
Most Americans are decent, hard-working people who want the best for themselves and their loved ones. As a whole, we may be ignorant of the political process but we usually start learning later on when we've been had. Perhaps I'm just naïve or a stubborn optimist but I think a good portion of America does care about how Government is defacing the planet with greed, death, lawlessness, and utter incompetence. It's not that we are indifferent so much as we are afraid and highly confronted with such a loaded subject. Who wouldn't be? We're exhausted with our everyday lives and are just trying to keep up with all of the demands we have to face. Who has much time left to care about Government?
I don't have any easy answers to the rat-race that most of us are stuck in. What I do know is that, like L-tryptophan on Thanksgiving Day, we need to find a better way to avoid slumbering into a society that has no individual freedom left. Government will gladly tell us how to live our lives if we continue to lobby on behalf of it to do so. Reforming government doesn't work. This only makes the turkey bigger and more invasive. What we sorely need is a government that is carved apart and reduced to meager leftovers for a sandwich or two. Even this seems like too much to digest, though.
With every administration, Government keeps promising that it will reduce itself but this, of course, never happens. The government is addicted to its own existence and sense of necessity. Once it sees all of the free money that is available to them from increased taxes, all promises are crapped out like the day after Thanksgiving.
If America wants to remain "the beacon of freedom," it must dispose of its useless government. This process is not to be done gradually or with consternation. This hasn't worked in the past and won't work now-it only gives politicians more time to fatten Government power and waste. No, we must quit Big Government cold turkey; otherwise, we won't have much left to be thankful for.
|
|
# -- Posted 11/27/03; 12:02:07 AM
|
|
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| UPSIDE DOWN criminal justice (Part 2) |
|
Yesterday, I described how the Criminal Code and Law Enforcement have been turned UPSIDE DOWN. Those functions "feed" citizens into the criminal justice system. What happens when they get there is just as bad.
Prosecution
From many reports, prosecutors are now the controlling factor in our criminal justice system, and many are being accused of building little empires for personal political gain. In the process, they've turned criminal justice upside down, especially in drug cases, by cutting deals for snitching, even if the person being snitched on is innocent. Their goal is to increase the number of people accepting guilty pleas. They can take one arrest and reduce that perp's charge in return for naming and testifying against other people.
Think about that... if the original perp is indeed a bad guy, is he going to have any restraint in naming other people... regardless of their actual guilt? Isn't it likely that a bad guy will lie to reduce his own charges? Isn't it likely that he'll implicate innocent people? The result can be that the truly guilty people end up with reduced charges for cooperating, while innocent snitch victims get the big charges because they don't have information with which to cooperate.
Other related tactics, especially in drug cases, include threatening an arrested person with prosecution of their friends and family members unless they plead guilty. Prosecutors (and law enforcement) have also decided that using deceptive practices are legitimate. UPSIDE DOWN.
Trial
Criminal justice doesn't get much better once it reaches trial stage. A massive complication of rules of evidence can often keep extremely relevant information from even reaching a jury or judge, so a verdict can be given that is truly ignorant of what really happened. In some cases, it can protect a guilty person, and in other cases it can lead to a conviction of an innocent person. Thanks to the aggressive nature of code, law enforcement and prosecution, our courts have become so jammed that gross mistakes are almost pre-destined due to everyone's case load, and the right to a speedy trial is jeopardized, leaving many people in jail for long periods, just awaiting a trial at which they could be found innocent. The pressure on the courts has a tendency to treat all who are charged the same... to treat them as guilty... as fodder for the "justice mill". Innocent until proven guilty has really been reversed. UPSIDE DOWN
Sentencing
As if running more people through the justice system, and treating them as guilty, and the complications of trial weren't enough, sentencing has become the WORST part of the justice system. Judges often have their hands tied with legislated minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines, and are forced to lay down sentences that they believe are unjustly harsh. Judges are speaking out against these rules that force them to ignore the individual circumstances of cases. Judges are retiring early or just dropping out because they can't stand giving sentences they see as unjust. One of the functions of a judge is to try to insure that the results are just and fair. They can no longer do that. UPSIDE DOWN
The result of all these injustices is an UPSIDE DOWN criminal justice system that has put 2.1 million Americans behind bars. It's a system that, because of mandatory minimum sentencing on drug and gun charges, is sentencing non-violent offenders (often so innocent that it would make you sick) to longer sentences than violent offenders. Because the prisons are overcrowded, violent offenders are being released while non-violent offenders sit out their mandatory sentences.
Our criminal justice system is so UPSIDE DOWN, and so destructive of lives, and so expensive, that I contend we would actually be better off without it. I invite you to think about your own situation. Are you more likely to be the victim of a crime, or more likely to fall afoul of some law yourself? Then ask yourself which would more seriously affect your life? For almost all of us, the protectors have, together, become more dangerous than what they're protecting us from.
Whose criminal justice system is it? Isn't it ours... the people? Why then are we being forced to live in fear of it? Why is it treating all of us as if we were the enemy?
Libertarians often discuss whether criminal justice should be considered a proper role of government, or whether it can be done better through private organizations. What has happened to our governmental criminal justice system is what happens to all governmental systems... they don't work, they become corrupted, and they become oppressive toward those they're supposed to serve. For any libertarian who hasn't yet been willing to remove criminal justice from their short list of proper governmental roles, that choice is getting easier every day. Our government is making complete anarchism look more like a preferred solution every day.
|
|
# -- Posted 11/26/03; 12:00:42 AM
|
|
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| UPSIDE DOWN criminal justice (Part 1) |
|
What I'm going to suggest to you is close to being unthinkable; it's a monstrous thought that, at first consideration, "feels" like a ridiculous exaggeration, or maybe satire. What I want you to consider carefully, though, is the possibility that our criminal justice system, federal and state, does more harm than good. Might we actually be better off if we had no law enforcement, no prosecutors, no criminal courts, and no jails?
No, I'm not suggesting that we eliminate those functions. I'm not suggesting that eliminating those functions would be without problems, but I am suggesting that it's possible that the problems would be more bearable than the problems being caused by those functions. I'm suggesting that the system has become so destructive that it is WORSE than none at all.
The criminal justice functions have literally been turned UPSIDE DOWN, so that serious crime often does pay, and minor offenses are being punished severely. We are, in many cases, putting truly innocent people in prison while setting seriously guilty people free... not by accident, not because of mistakes, but because of systemic problems.
The old excuse that "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" has been revised to "we'll break a lot of eggs and maybe occasionally get an omelet".
Criminal code
This is where it started, and this is where the first blame must be placed... right at the doorstep of Congress and state legislatures. The number of laws on the books increases every year, and the complexity of those laws rises.
Think about crime for a moment... what should be criminal? Shouldn't it be an act in which one person harms another in some way?... physical harm, or theft of property, or fraud? What else would you include in "crime"? It ain't brain surgery... you know when you've been harmed by someone. Why should it be complicated?
There is no possible way for anyone to be sure that their actions are not breaking some law. Each of us is subject to arrest at almost any moment. Every day thousands of people are stunned to find that they've run afoul of the law.
The intent of laws is supposed to be to protect us from those who would do us harm... who would victimize us. Instead it has become a maze of unknown, intricate traps to ensnare and punish us... and at our own expense. UPSIDE DOWN
Law enforcement
If you're old enough, you can remember when police were considered friends; helpful public servants, who had taken a vow to "Protect and Serve". They were respected members of our communities. We admired their patience, their bravery, and enjoyed seeing them. Now, for most people, having a cop approach you brings apprehension of at least having to suffer some inconvenience, and often, at having your day ruined, your bank account drained, if not FAR worse.
Cops now treat us as dangerous adversaries, and talk to us with unfeeling, precise caution. I understand that they can't tell good guys from bad guys, but that has always been true. That was what once earned them respect; they did take some risk in being nice and friendly. Somehow, that attitude has vanished and been replaced by a "play it safe", "treat everyone like a scumbag" attitude. I find it inexcusable; especially considering the fact that being in law enforcement is not a particularly dangerous occupation. They do their best to broadcast every time a police officer is injured or killed, but we all face dangers every day.
I know a few cops, and I know that they're not all bad people, but, on the job, it's easy to be fooled. It's the DAMNED SYSTEM again. Somebody decided that acting like storm troopers would be better. It isn't. It has alienated the public from their "protectors". That's not good for the cops, and is sure isn't good for the citizenry. Cops are putting a lot more people "into the system" then they used to, and they're copping huge quantities of seized property... money, automobiles, and more. They don't seem to feel free to use discretion, or consider circumstances, but rather just make an automatic arrest. Rather than acting like our protectors, they act like adversaries. UPSIDE DOWN
Tomorrow: Prosecution, Trial, and Sentencing - all UPSIDE DOWN
|
|
# -- Posted 11/25/03; 12:00:57 AM
|
|
|
| Monday, November 24, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| Fearing Fear Itself |
|
By Chris Basten
As an avid consumer of current affairs, I find myself beleaguered with the onslaught of dos and don'ts in the reporting world. I'm burnt out with it all, quite frankly. Too much of anything is almost never a good thing. If I were to strictly live my life based upon what I hear from the media, I would likely be on 10 different psychotropic medications and would never leave my house. Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that a number of Americans are duped up on America's greatest consumer good: fear.
The latest dietary fad comes in the carbohydrate variety. I've noticed recently that the 'Atkins Diet' has its own line of carbohydrate-conscious bread for those concerned about losing weight. Low-carb diets are all the rage these days and nothing is beyond a "less carbs" label to grab your health-conscious buck. Isn't eating about more than just carbohydrates, though? No food can make choices for you no matter how thin or obese you may be. But since carbohydrates are marketed as the modern day Communism of American diets, many are shelling out their money in hopes of slimming down. I'm just waiting for a report that encourages consumption of carbohydrates again so that people can stop being so afraid of them.
Marketing ploys are minor flies in my ointment, though. Take suicide-bombing, for instance. Any idiot can see that terrorism is a problem. But what the untrained eye cannot see is that terrorism exists for political reasons and not because unprovoked madmen happen to be bored and want to die taking others with them. Think about it. How pissed off would you have to be before you would seriously consider strapping dynamite to your chest and blowing yourself up in a crowded plaza to make a statement? Something is destroying the Arab/Muslim way of life and it ain't carbohydrates. Perhaps evil American politicians and corrupt businessmen who screw then bomb the snot out of rich oil producers are the problem, not you. But we are told that America is an innocent bystander of terrorism so you better duct tape your house, be suspicious of all Middle Eastern immigrants, put up with unconstitutional airport "security" searches, and tune into CNN. This way you you'll be so scared that you won't have room to defend your individual rights.
An even bigger fear factor is criticism. Try admonishing the government these days and you're bound to be accused of aiding the enemy. A government who questions my patriotism doesn't realize that I wasn't patriotic to begin with. I don't pledge my allegiance to anything except the concept of liberty. Try disapproving of Israel and you might be called an Anti-Semite without even hinting about Judaism. To scathe Israeli is to be a Jew-hater even though not all Israelis are Jews. The two have become so collapsed together that nearly anyone who finds something wrong with this country is aligned with neo-Nazism. Marginalize certain individuals who happen to be minorities and you might be tried for discrimination or a hate-crime. Tell people to throw away their TVs and you're scoffed at for being too serious about life. Suggest that public schools are breeding grounds for stagnant status quo thinking that develops children into mindless adults and you are labeled as paranoid. Maybe I am paranoid and maybe I am too trigger-happy on these issues but the freedom-fighters of the world have always been eccentric and branded as nuts. I would rather go against the grain and risk majority disapproval than sit still and turn into an uninformed vegetable. I have my status quo indulgences like anyone else but allowing them to take over does not allow me to be an independent thinker. Let me know of a public school that teaches sovereignty over one's life instead of being subject to government assistance and universal altruism and I will stop whining (maybe).
The biggest fear of all, though, is one most commoners don't recognize. A fear of macroscopic proportion is the one that the government has of its citizens. Why else would the government have to be so intrusive, so nasty, so nosy, so regulatory, so large, and so out of control? It fears the power of the people, that is why. If they can regulate and squelch and tax the fiber out of everyone, it weakens us to think we can make a difference. The government, whether consciously or subconsciously, does not trust the people to take care of themselves. An independent populace is one that has no use for Uncle Sam and this frightens politicians more than any terrorist in love with C4. If your life truly does belong to you and you truly can be self-sufficient, the government is an obsolete corporation that needs to coerce the idea of its importance to stay in business. If this is accomplished, their fear of us is shrouded by our fear of their guns, their wars, their overbearing laws, and their force. My fear is not just of the government's aggression disguised as "good intentions," but also of the ignorance that many decent people have about these intentions.
In the end, we do not just fear fear itself. We have become petrified to stand up for the individuality that dared to form a country based solely upon it. This is frightful, indeed. |
|
# -- Posted 11/24/03; 12:01:16 AM
|
|
|
| Friday, November 21, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| Registered under the name, 'Fido' |
|
Advocates of socialized medicine are barking up the wrong tree
By Chris Basten
All living beings age and die (with the exception of a handful of cockroaches and Dick Clark). Life is full of aches and pains, cancers, diseases, injuries and eventual death. The grim reaper gets us all sooner or later. Nevertheless, human beings are a cantankerous crew when it comes to facing the ills of life. A good number of people who value life want to hold on to it as long as possible. Why the government should be held responsible for helping us extend our health and vitality is beyond me, especially since federal interventions usually make us worse off and shorten our lifespan.
"How so?" you ask. Well, we don't need to look any further than Medicare, one of the worst failures this side of Social Security. Proponents of socialized medicine in the United States think that more Government and more money will fix the problem. As we shall soon see, Government restricts your access to affordable health care. Keep in mind that all government interventions are started with good intentions. This does not excuse their dismal effects, however.
The advocacy of licensed physicians seems like a good idea at first glance but this actually prohibits you from using your own best judgment. When federal laws tell you whom you can and cannot seek for medical advice or treatment, your options are limited to the field of licensed individuals. Fees are actually higher when the profession is constrained by the government because licensure limits competition and by these rules, you have to be charged much more for the practitioner to stay in good standing with state and federal regulators.
With advances in technology, doctors have many resources at their fingertips. They can send copies of tests or x-rays to non-local physicians with more expertise or high-level equipment that can analyze an ailment quickly. This greatly improves your chances of finding a fast treatment. It also eliminates the need to travel long distances for consultation. Unfortunately, these speedy venues of care are denied when a consulting physician in another region of the country is not licensed which expends more of your time and money.
In a sue-happy society, doctors are forced to have expensive malpractice insurance. To guard themselves from frivolous lawsuits if something should go wrong, many practitioners order several expensive tests to make sure they cover all of the bases. Government courts seem to foster trivial lawsuits which only add to the expense of malpractice insurance which adds to your medical expenses.
The FDA (produced by the government with good intentions in mind) claims that certain drugs must be approved by them first before you can take part in the medicinal market. Regrettably, the average drug can take up to 10 years to receive FDA approval and can cost a company in excess of hundreds-of-millions of dollars to get a line of pharmaceuticals authorized for public use. Because foreign markets are usually much less restrictive, drugs that take several years to get approved in the United States are readily available elsewhere at more reasonable prices. But don't let the government catch you trying to buy pharmaceuticals without FDA approval or you could face litigation and prison time even if the drug you sought is known to help treat deadly diseases. The FDA, then, has the final say on what you can put in your own body on their time schedule. Because the government doesn't trust you to make your own decisions with your health and well-being, you have to endure pain and probably unnecessary death in waiting for the government's OK.
The FDA also cracks down on the non-prescription health benefits of vitamins, herbs, supplements, and certain foods even though the medical profession often tells us that certain things like red wine in moderation can be good for you. Even folic acid, which is recommended for pregnant women who want to prevent birth-defects, is restricted from health-benefit claims. As long as pharmaceutical companies are forced to pay such heavy fees to have prescription drugs approved, the government will enforce laws to keep the FDA in operation and restrict non-prescription products from making any good assertions about their effects on your health. After all, the government has the best of intentions for you and these practices continue to provide it with immense income.
Medicare is government force and force never works. It only drains precious resources and ends up killing more people than it saves. Hospitals must treat anyone who comes through the door with Medicare coverage. If Medicare patients cannot afford what they need, you, the taxpayer, are given the bill to make up the enormous difference.
Still lusting after socialized medicine? Consider the story of a man in Canada (a country well-known for socialized medicine) who needed a cat-scan but had to wait several months to see a physician. In his desperation, he booked an appointment for himself at a local veterinary clinic that had the imaging equipment he needed. He registered himself under the name 'Fido' to assure that he would get in.
Government-subsidized health care has been a disaster worldwide. But since Government doesn't have to hold itself accountable and the laws and regulations that it coerces everyone to abide by make it filthy rich, why should it stop insisting that it will take care of you even if evidence proves that nothing the government does is working? Socialized medicine only makes all of the 'Fidos' of the world chase their tails thinking that it will somehow work if enough money and good intentions are thrown at it. |
|
# -- Posted 11/21/03; 12:01:30 AM
|
|
|
| Thursday, November 20, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| Hate Crime Hatred |
|
By Andrew Seffrood, guest columnist
According to FBI statistics, 8,832 hate crime offenses occurred in 2002. These crimes run the gamut from vandalism and motor vehicle theft to forcible rape and murder.
Hate crimes are deplorable. Hate crime laws are deplorable as well. What's the difference? As nineteen century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was known to have said, I hate definitions.
Hate crime legislation increase penalties for actions that already are illegal, if the crime was motivated by the victim's inclusion in a certain demographic group. Hate crime laws create an additional crime and increase the penalty for hatred of the victim.
Supporters of hate crime laws hope that increased penalties for hate crimes will reduce prejudice and bigotry. They believe codifying anti-hatred will reduce prejudicial beliefs and actions.
Opponents of hate crime legislation believe additional laws are unnecessary; criminals are prosecuted for breaking laws, regardless of their motivation.
Hate crime laws raise numerous issues. For starters, these laws punish beliefs and speech. While prejudice and bigotry are appalling and wrong, regulation of any type of thought is constitutionally perilous and sets a precedent in which we could all become criminals.
In addition, victims of crimes who do not belong to specified groups have a legitimate claim that their perpetrators are subject to lesser punishment. Should the penalty for an assault be less because it was perpetrated by a member of the victim's same demographic group?
888 of 4393 racial offenses reported to the FBI last year were anti-white. If prosecution rates of hate crimes against whites exceed those for non-whites, hate crimes legislation will disproportionately prosecute non-whites and be punishing individuals included in the groups that the laws are designed to protect.
In a recent Star Tribune article, Minneapolis Mayor Rybak attributed the absence of any reported religious hate crime in Minneapolis last year to an aggressive focus on the Somali community "and others concerned about post-9/11 backlash." This statement is indicative of misperceptions about hate crimes; while the FBI reported 170 anti-Islamic offenses nationwide in 2002, anti-Jewish offenses accounted for 1039, or 66%, of all religious hate crimes offenses last year. In addition, an interesting 26 anti-heterosexual hate crime offenses were reported.
Robbery, assault, and murder, regardless of motivation, are offensive and should be punished. However, additional laws, by definition, create more crime and more criminals. Hate crimes legislation criminalizes thought and speech. Why should thought and speech, no matter how offensive, be considered crime?
|
|
# -- Posted 11/20/03; 12:01:38 AM
|
|
|
| Wednesday, November 19, 2003 |
PERMALINK: |
|
|
| The Truth (about smoking) is Out There (Part 2) |
|
Yesterday, in Part 1, I pointed out that the ignorance we once had about the medical benefits of marijuana equates to the ignorance we still have about the medical benefits of smoking tobacco. I related the results of new studies that show the connection between nicotine and ADHD, a growing problem among our children.
The questions I want to raise here are:
- Is it coincidence that the rise of ADHD corresponds with the decrease in smoking?
- Is it coincidence that the rise in Alzheimer's corresponds with the decrease in smoking?
- Is it coindicence that the rise in obesity corresponds with the decrease in smoking?
We know that all 3 of these problems are positively affected by smoking, and that they've all increased as the percentage of smokers has dropped from approximately 50% to 25% of the population. It's no stretch to think that there may be cause and effect involved, not just coincidence.
I know from personal experience that people acquire habits for reasons. I also know that people smoke cigarettes (or eat chocolate or pastries, or drink coffee or booze) because those actions have some result that they like. People will do what makes them feel better. That's called self-medication and it's a fact of life. When people happen across something that makes them feel better, they latch on to it if they can, no matter what science or society says. As long as the positive effects outweigh any negative effects, they're likely to continue to use it. If I'm schizophrenic, and smoking alleviates that problem... and stopping smoking causes the problem to get worse, I'm probably going to smoke, even if I believe that it's unhealthy. Others are going to view me as addicted, aren't they?
Our societal norms have been completely off-base many, many times in the past, and they're off again in relation to cigarette smoking. When so many people have to tell so many bald-faced lies about it, it should make all of us suspicious. While cigarette taxes have raised prices enormously... while public condemnation has become so offensive, and millions of people still continue to smoke, only an idiot would not be suspicious that there is something here that we just don't understand.
The real danger to all of us is that we will allow the anti-tobacco organizations to inflict such fear on us, for their own financial gain, that we will never discover the truth. It's more than possible that they've already condemned a great many people to the suffering of ADHD, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, obesity and other problems.
If I've raised your suspicions enough to make you more curious, take a look at the results of just some of the research that has been done about smoking. Believe me, if it weren't verboten to say anything good about smoking, we would have heard a lot more positive results.
There is NO adverse health effect from secondhand smoke (fact) and no scientific evidence of danger from smoking itself. If you believe otherwise, take the time to find the evidence and send it to me. If it's scientific and honest, I'll publish it. I don't really give a whit what the truth turns out be... I just want to see us have enough honesty to really find the truth instead of being bamboozled by lies. Don't bother with "proof" from the FDA... they've already been publicly castigated in court for flagrant falsification of such data. Their credibility is, unfortunately, zero.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should smoke. That's a individual, personal decision. Smoking has been a whipping-boy to such an extent that it has affected research into the real causes of some medical problems. That affects all of us adversely, and it's a direct result of individuals and organizations promoting their own financial agendas through propagation of fear.
The Truth IS out there... all we have to do is have the honesty to look. |
|
# -- Posted 11/19/03; 12:01:09 AM
|
|
|
>Home
>Use the Calendar to view previous posts
|
|
|
|
