neoperspectives archives

4/21/08 Neoperspectives.com by Kyle Hunt

    After three long weeks of work at my new job, I needed a respite from the world of bits and pieces. I was able to find one right outside my door.

    I sat silently in the small Los Angeles courtyard, gradually forgetting the challenges and stresses of running a company. I felt the comforting presence of the tree above me, shading me from the sun when I got too hot, and breathing with me in time. The tree let little glimpses of light shine through, while its neighbors reflected the sun with their leaves, creating a dynamic, daytime star field as they swayed in the breeze – telling their ancient story:

    Throughout the history of man, trees have played a crucial role in our development. Years ago, they were our shelter, giving us a better perspective from up high and protecting us from predators. We shared this home with many other creatures who also sought a place in which to flourish. But like those other animals, we needed to leave our homes to gather resources, find mates, and exchange goods. Life was simple, but fraught with danger.

    And then man learned of fire through some act of nature, God, Prometheus, or Lucifer. He discovered how to contain the flame and then how to create it. Those with this knowledge held a clear advantage over those left in the dark.

    The carriers of the light traveled north to explore the uninhabited lands. The trees became more coniferous, the nights grew long, and the winters became a blistering cold. Trees, preferable in their decaying state, were burned to keep our internal flame going. We were safeguarded against night stalkers and hypothermia. The flame even became a sign of civilization – a gathering point around which a community of humans might form. The torch currently symbolizes this phenomenon.

    Though originally made of earth and stone, the houses of these humans once again became the trees. But this time, the trees were felled and reordered into more and more suitable shelters. They provided a sufficient barrier against the outside world, giving a sense of safety in a perilous existence.

    They even became our vessels against the sea, opening up new worlds. Man was able to move people and goods in much higher quantities, at much greater speeds, because of the amazing properties of wood. How else could so many Irish, Chinese, and African people have been shipped to labor in the New World, but for our mastery of trees?

    We can look around today and see how integral the tree has been to our way of life. But does our relationship to the tree not go any deeper? Perhaps.

    For one, we share the same calendar with trees. Trees mark their solar years in a circular fashion, while we blow out the flames of our years stuck into a cake.

    Tremendously, the most intelligent data structures imitate the tree. When organizing family histories, the internet, and knowledge in general, the tree becomes the most appropriate resulting diagram – unfortunately it is often squashed down into two-dimensions and rendered useless.

    Triumphantly, we are trees. Our toes, feet, and legs are our roots. Our trunks are.. well, our trunks. And our arms, hands and fingers branch out, probing into the world. They allow us to produce, obtain, and consume energy.

    We lack the chloroplasts of the tree, which makes us unable to sufficiently synthesize enough energy from the sun without also eating. But like most forms of life, we have melanin to protect our sensitive bodies from the sun's radiation. With the proper amount of sunlight, the melatonin hormone within us helps us to be happier, healthier, and more radiant people. Hence Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), the ridiculously acronymed "disease" that occurs when a human does not spend enough time outside.

    But unlike the tree, we can pull up our roots – our support structures – and plant ourselves all over the world. Some people are of hardier strains, with more fully developed brains containing many branches and roots. These humans are much like the hemp plant, incredibly useful, abhorred by big corporations, and able to flourish in even the harshest of conditions.

    But of course with the Tree of Life comes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Macbeth was right to worry when 'Birnam Forest come to Dunsinane'. The wizard Sarumon could not stand the onslaught of Ent tree-herders angered out of Fanghorn Forest. Have you never seen a tree with eyes?

    They are full of power and force, and yet we take them for granted in our daily lives.

    I wonder: what would the wind be like if there were no trees to give it life and voice? and will the Cradle drop?

Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15th deadline to file their returns. Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice – once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money. Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out. To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.

The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous. Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000. The Tax Foundation estimates that around $265 billion dollars and 6 billion hours are spent just on compliance. That expense amounts to about 22 cents of every dollar the IRS collects. Imagine the boon to the economy if we spent that time and money expanding our businesses and creating jobs!

Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place. The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations. These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars. There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by. Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration. This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.

Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it. There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours. In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax. Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big. $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.

I have introduced legislation many times to abolish the IRS and the income tax. It is fundamentally un-American to require taxpayers to testify against themselves and be considered guilty until proven innocent. Abolishing the IRS altogether would trigger an avalanche of real growth in the economy.

With these financial hard times only just beginning, this would be the most efficient and logical way to get our economy growing again, and Americans would need not dread the 15th of April every year.

Pretty outrageous if you ask me, for the state to seize over 400 children from their families on what have turned out to be false charges and then fish for crimes. What happened to innocent before proven guilty?

This is not the first time we've written about Texas Child Services on this website.

Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.

An interesting perspective with some worthwhile facts in here; if you can cut through the rhetoric.

Kenya's expanded new government will spend 80 per cent of the entire national budget on luxury vehicles, inflated salaries for ministers and general running costs, a local anti-corruption group claimed on Wednesday.

President Mwai Kibaki's administration now boasts 43 ministries - up from 34 - in a deal with the Orange Democratic Movement, led by Raila Odinga, following the bitterly disputed election.

Of the 222 MPs, almost half now have government jobs. Cabinet members benefit from annual salaries exceeding £83,000 and numerous perks, including official cars and "entertainment" allowances of £600 per month.

What percentage of US citizens work for the government? How lucrative is it to be employed by the government as opposed to work in the private sector in the United States? The answers to these questions show we differ in scale and scope, but not in substance from Kenya. In fact, how much of Kenya's budget is from US taxpayers? Last question, how many aid groups are operating in Kenya but are not addressing the root cause of Kenya's poverty: the corruption and socialism of the Kenyan government and economy?

Half the population has received no dental care on the NHS in the last two years.

And thousands of suffering patients are turning up at hospital emergency departments for treatment because they cannot find an NHS dentist.

Dentists complain the contract does not reflect the amount of work they actually carry out - for example, they receive the same amount of money regardless of whether they provide a patient with two fillings or ten.

Last year, a survey found that one in 20 patients had resorted to DIY treatment, in some cases pulling out their own teeth.

Earlier this month Elizabeth Green, 76, from Winchester, Hampshire, told how she was turned away by 12 dentists.

A very interesting talk; a personal experience on left brain vs right brain and our perceptions of the world, related to enlightenment.

What if there was a way to artificially and safely temporarily cause the 'good' part of the effects of the stroke she had by somehow inhibiting that part of the brain?

Here is the powerpoint of the presentation given two days ago at Touro University AMSA/SOMA health policy week. It is 110 slides and the presentation lasted about two hours. There is some video and audio, recorded on digital camera and mp3 respectively, but because of technical limitations doesn't cover the whole thing and so I didn't post those. Perhaps I'll try to venture down this path again in the near future and create a more dynamic internet presentation, maybe on youtube or something.

Chen, who studies the Chinese economy, argued in a lecture Tuesday that the Chinese government ought to decrease the stake it holds in its economy in order to even income distribution among citizens.

Presenting data that he said reflected an inverse relationship between the number of state-owned enterprises and the level of economic development, Chen argued that instead of promoting economic equality, state ownership centralizes wealth and produces a wider gap between the rich and the poor.

Interesting article describing the uselessness of a half dozen California agencies. Notice that there is a 'private' tomato board, in conjunction with the state board. Best to just get rid of the state one and let these jokers manage their own companies.

Sometimes all it takes is a bit of simple math. I'd like to apologize to readers, as I quoted the $13,00 number repeatedly in 'A Charter School Tale'. Coulson makes a pretty strong case here that the number is actually twice that:

We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child -- on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.

A powerpoint presentation titled:

'The Virtues of Free Market Healthcare' will be given tonight (Tuesday) at 6pm at Touro University.

Touro U is on American Pacific dr, just past Gibson in Henderson near where the 515 and 215 meet. You will need to sign in at the front desk before hand. They know people not affiliated with the school will be coming. The talk will be in lecture hall two. I've been allotted two hours, although I won't use up that much, hopefully! :)

Hope to see you all there!
-Travis

DESTIN — Two years and 28 monster burgers later, Geoff Dobson’s mission is accomplished.

Let us be the first to congratulate neoperspectives contributing author Geoff Dobson on his incredible feat. :)

Why we shouldn't trust politicians. This story demonstrates a few things; an inaccurate worldview, a factual misunderstanding of the US health system, and an irresponsible, almost reckless approach to informing the public on key issues affecting the nation. For example:

Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.

“It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”

Health service dentists have been forced to go on holiday or spend time on the golf course this month despite millions of patients being denied dental care.

Many have fulfilled their annual work quotas allotted by the National Health Service and have been turning patients away because they are not paid to do extra work. This is despite the fact that more than 7m people in Britain are unable to find an NHS dentist.

Eddie Crouch, secretary of the Birmingham local dental committee, estimates that up to a third of dentists in the West Midlands have run out of work or have had to reduce the number of NHS patients they treat.

The British Dental Association fears that other dentists have been unable to meet their quotas and will be forced to pay back thousands of pounds to the NHS.

Ran across these interesting graphs comparing Canada and the United States Healthcare while compiling a 'Free Market Healthcare' Power point presentation for an upcoming talk (this ppt will be uploaded when finished).

Amid rising food and fuel costs, the assistance is becoming worth less and less.

And supplemental food programs for poor families are struggling to keep up with the added demand as donations are on the decline.

Nationally, more than 26 million Americans were on the food stamp program last year, according to the federal agriculture department.

"We never have enough food to totally give everybody what they really want," Nardella said.

IMO, these welfare agencies will never 'have enough' regardless of how many Americans are on welfare - the same welfare that is the very reason for their poverty. These agencies have already decimated Appalachia.

Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve.

Well, this is nice to see! However, does Bernanke apply this knowledge? Or does he believe that it was not the 'power of the Fed' to begin with that caused the great depression, but just how it was applied? He apparently believes he could do better:

Most sweeping changes since Great Depression Proposal will give the Federal Reserve new regulatory power
MSNBC ^ | March. 28, 2008 | AP writer

The proposal would designate the Fed as the primary regulator of market stability, greatly expanding the central bank's ability to examine not just commercial banks but all segments of the financial services industry.

The Associated Press obtained a 22-page executive summary of the proposal. It seeks to make sense of the mishmash of overlapping oversight in which an alphabet-soup roster of agencies regulates banks, thrifts and credit unions.

Under the current hodgepodge, institutions that take deposits and are federally insured face multiple regulatory bodies. By contrast, hedge funds, private equity firms and investment banks endure substantially less regulation.

IMO, the more power given to Federal agencies to meddle in the affairs of the market, the more likely the Fed will cause another 'great depression'.

Six young brothers and sisters face being taken from their parents and put into care because they are overweight.

Social workers have warned they will intervene if three of the youngsters – including a 12-year-old boy who weighs 16 stone – do not shed several pounds in three months.

The parents have been told they risk losing all their children if there is no improvement in the 12-year-old or two of his sisters aged 11 and three – who weigh 12 stone and four stone – by June. <.>

Last year, an eight-year-old girl from the Cumbria area was taken into care because she weighed nine stone.

Government records of political candidates are tightly restricted because of concerns they could be used against candidates or the data could be altered as part of campaign dirty tricks.

No word yet on any 'restrictive protections' for the rest of us. Government data collection on its citizens has little useful purpose IMO, and can only lead to corruption and invasion of privacy. I don't see any reason why the government should keep records of where we've gone.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

ETHANOL MADNESS (2006)
Executive Intelligence Review (excerpt) from Technocracy.org ^ | 06/02/2006 | Staff
Well, first, we'll get 20% less gas mileage from our fuel that way. Second, we can pay a good deal more for fuel, in direct prices and subsidies; in fact, we'll be able to use a fuel whose price is inflating much faster than the price of gasoline. Third, we'll be able to spend tens of billions of dollars more a year in tax revenues, subsidizing ethanol makers, including some of the biggest global cartels. Fourth, we can use up more petrochemical energy making ethanol than we get by using it. Fifth, we can use up large volumes of scarce regions of the country, and overburden our transport infrastructure as well. Sixth, we could soon deny corn exports to nations that need them — maybe even cut our own consumption of corn and burn it in our cars instead...

And last but not least, we can delay or cut off the revival of nuclear power for industry and economic expansion; instead, we could take a major scientific and technological step backwards, a great leap back toward primitive ages when mankind burned straw for fuel.

Is this not similar to the previously posted story on how Hydrogen cars pollute more (plus are more expensive) than regular gas cars?

3/20/08 Neoperspectives.com (By Kyle Hunt)

The "news" does not interest me much these days. It is too disheartening.
I am more interested in the principles and concepts that can be considered "timeless." I have been most interested in the field of energy that sustains all life. Unfortunately, many are unable to grasp the complexities and ultimate simplicity of this concept.

In an effort to increase understanding and engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic, I would like to present some of my favorite movies that deal with the manipulation and control of energy in space-time. I could reference a bunch of books that I have read, but that would be less fun and take way too long. In an odd way, this is where I cite my sources:

Brad Pitt Understands Consumerism – Bruce Willis is sent back in time from an apocalyptic future and put in an insane asylum. There he is introduced to the evils of the world through an oddly-attractive lunatic who later goes on to be a terrorist leader.

Breaking Boundaries – A true genius attempts to find a unifying theory. The government puts him to work, he discovers too much, and is sentenced to a terrifying future of electro-shock and insanity. There are patterns everywhere.

Intro/Beginning – In this movie, there are pale/grey men who control the reality of every person alive. That sounds familiar. Also, let us not read too far into the "KH" seen on the briefcase.
The End – Mind over matter to the full extent. Jennifer Connelly has been in my thoughts since Labyrinth!

Trailer – Watch for "they made me do it" – or is it "The y made me do i x" This is touched on in X * Y. Time Travel is discussed in Continuing the Spiral.

Mad World – Great lyrics and great production design for the film by Alec Hammond.

Head Over Heels – An amazing sequence showing life in school. Reality is only a matter of perspective.

A Genius Interviews with the NSA – Although I don't like or respect many shrinks, Robin sure seems like an exception. He hits the nail right on the head. It is not uncommon that a genius lacks direction in such a society and is unable to commit in relationships. There is also a comparison drawn between Will and the Unabomber in the movie. One must be crazy to not want all of the "great things" our civilization has to offer.

Opening Scene – Chilling. "And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History Became Legend. Legend Became Myth."
Two Towers Trailer – There is an obvious Twin Towers link. The multi-cultural coalition against the powers of evil is of note. So is the ability of the pale-skinned elves to see the future possibilities.
ROTK Trailer – Neither the Stewards of Gondor nor Sauron want Aragorn to take the throne, as he would usurp their powers.
Matilda

Dancing with the World – "She's a witch.. Burn her!" (Monty Python logic)

Original Trailer – Paranoia and confusion in the high-tech age. Reality vs. illusion while waiting for a savior.
Neo Meets the Architect – The Architect is an old white male. Neo is not the first anomaly, but he is the One. Was the First Matrix that is described the Garden of Eden? Note the logical, perfectionist Father Architect and the intuitive, loving Mother Oracle. Neo chooses the non-logical choice because an emotional response – something very difficult to calculate. It is interesting to see that although the Architect and Oracle created the system, they never claim to be God.

Mad As Hell – It is pretty easy to be these days. What a great description of society.

Travolta on Energy – Mr. Kotter taught him well. I attempt an explanation in Star Theory.

An Explanation of Connection – Again, the light-skinned magician. The 3rd eye (6th chakra) is discussed. Powder's code of ethics seems strikingly similar to the Jedi's. I will admit I am very pale, but I have a bit more melanin and more of a pinkish/red tone.

Yoda's Wisdom – A discussion of the life force. Search "Yoda" on Youtube, and all you get is inanity.
Yoda on Premonition, Death, and Attachment – The Jedi have a philosophy very much in line with Buddhists and many other mystical belief systems.
The Usurpation of Power – The force is balanced much in the same way Shiva dances, but unfortunately this means the bad guys can grab the reigns of power for a time. It is interesting how the expendability and controllability of the clone army is ultimate.

Time Travel Kyle – Kyle Reese travels into the world in the infamous year of 1984 – a year after this Kyle came in. He had been sent back in time to save the future of humanity from the machines that eventually take control. He must kill a buffed up Terminator who intends to kill the mother of the resistance's leader, as he is ultimately successful. I chose this clip because Kyle Reese is the ultimate badass, eluding cops without hurting a single one.

Jean Grey Flips Out – Here is the same ultimate and total control of mind over matter. It is notable that Jean Grey ends up transforming into the Phoenix much in the same way Gandalf the Grey turns into Gandalf the White. We should also not forget the hostility that the majority of the population has for the mutants. Nor the over-priced trading cards I used to adore.

Some of these movies are better than others, but there are many important correlations between them. What I would like to suggest is that some, if not all, of the powers portrayed in these movies do, in fact, exist and will continue to become prevalent in our realities. We all know that science fiction quickly becomes science fact. Welcome to the real world.

This review should have been up a long time ago for a pretty good reason: it is simply the best book I have ever read.

A fictional epic, in the style of Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, it delivers a gripping tale of fantasy adventure, as a band of advanced Pylorians, 'wizards' who are able to harness the power of the 'mind sense', fight against an evil menace rising in the east. The nations of Calmer and Zireth take sides as intrigue and treachery ensues and a princess and sorceress fight for country, honor, and love.

It is definitely a family novel. Judeochristian values predominate and the tale is rife with teaching symbolisms. I've read this book 3-4 times, the last few unintentionally because I just couldn't put it down. :)

Quote section updated! The following quotes have replaced some of the others in the quote section:

I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness.

I flatter myself [we] have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.

Matthew 17:25-26
……and Jesus said, What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take custom or taxes? From their sons, or from strangers?
Peter said to Him, from strangers. Jesus said to him, Then truly the
sons are free.

See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.

After two world wars, countless smaller wars, mass murders, religious and racial persecution, several species of tyranny, punishing taxation, erosions of ancient liberties, debasement of money, and state-sponsored moral decadence, you’d think modern man would have drawn certain lessons about the modern State. All of us ought to talk about the State the way the Jews talk about Hitler.

One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else's. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn't know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainly not to be trusted.

Freedom is essentially a condition of inequality, not equality. It recognizes as a fact of nature the structural differences inherent in man - in temperament, character, and capacity - and it respects those differences. We are not alike and no law can make us so.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished....
The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.
The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world stabilizes itself.
Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves....

When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.

The Ontario Health Insurance Plan says it won't pay for the $60,000 cancer treatment because Ms. de Vries did not fill out the correct form seeking preapproval for out-of-country care.

As well, it says no medical documentation was submitted that indicated a delay in obtaining the service in Ontario would result in death or medically significant, irreversible tissue damage.

That administrative misstep has left Ms. de Vries, a 51-year-old corporate communications manager, with a staggering cancer bill.

The private funds earned an average 10 percent return since their start, ensuring that typical workers who contributed since 1981 now collect about 85 percent of their final wage upon retirement. That's more than double the average 40 percent paid to full-career, middle-income Social Security recipients in the U.S.

Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whom the media has dubbed a "driving force behind the lawsuits that have cost tobacco companies billions of dollars," and the "law professor who masterminded litigation against the tobacco industry," has written to the health commissioners of the fifty states suggesting that they warn their state's doctors about such law suits based upon a recent article in a leading medical journal and an even more recent study about saving smoker lives.

The letter notes a recent study which shows that physicians are killing more than 40,000 American smokers each year by failing to follow federal guidelines which mandate that the doctor warn the smoking patient about the many dangers of smoking and provide effective medical treatment for the majority who wish to quit.

"Since physician malpractice kills over 40,000 smokers annually – more than motor vehicle or product liability accidents – it should not be surprising if antismoking lawyers, as well as those in private practice working on contingency fees, find physicians who deliberately flout federal guidelines to be a major target of litigation."

Lets us go back to July 5th, 1997, when the landmark tobacco settlement against Tobacco companies was being negotiated. The AMA (and one assumes the AOA) were in favor of the hundred billion dollar settlements, which, incidentally, turned many lawyers into multi millionaires.

Two public health groups, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Medical Association, were involved in the negotiations that led to the accord.

CHICAGO, June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Continuing its commitment against the dangers of cigarette smoking, the American Medical Association (AMA) this week joined several other public interest organizations in a friend-of-the-court brief reaffirming support for a Florida class-action victory against the tobacco industry.

In July 2000, the $145 billion punitive damages verdict in Engle v. Liggett Group Inc. et al sent a strong message to tobacco companies that toying with the health and lives of Americans can be a prohibitively expensive business. The damages awarded in this case, however, could be overturned because an appellate court has reconsidered the case's class certification. The AMA believes the Florida Supreme Court should overturn the appellate court's ruling and compel the tobacco defendants to pay for the damages they continue to inflict on society.

"As long as the tobacco industry profits from business as usual, they must bear responsibility for the human suffering and economic costs that result from tobacco-related illnesses," said AMA Trustee Ronald M. Davis, MD. "Preserving the penalties in this case will provide a strong incentive for tobacco companies to change their behavior."

First they went for the tobacco companies, but the doctors did not care because they disliked the tobacco companies. But when they came for the doctors there was no one was left to come to their aid.

About 20 hours of teachings, lectures, songs, chants, and other recordable events are contained in the above link. Feel free to peruse them on the other page, but the very beautiful Satsungs have been excerpted here for your listening pleasure. :)

The following recordings are from the 2008 ATTC (Advanced Yoga Teacher's Training Course). This was a month long, intensive course on yoga, meditation, and philosophy. Its prerequisite was the TTC (teachers training course), another month long course. These courses take place at Ashrams, communal type retreats, with peaceful regimented daily livings dedicated to spiritual advancements. In my personal opinion, the TTC was an immediately gratifying shock of a course, but whose main effects dissipated, while the ATTC is a more subtle course, with seemingly longer lasting effects and positive change.

The recordings below can be downloaded by left clicking on them and saving them to your computer. They are all WAV files. You will need to turn the volume up. If it is still too low try right clicking on the sound icon on the lower right hand corner of your menu bar and finagling with it. Feel free to convert these WAV files to MP3s and play them on your Ipod or MP3 player!

If you are new to the subject of Yoga, the philosophy, or even if you are not :), I recommend you start with the 'Satsungs'. Satsungs are the equivalent of church gatherings, and the 'preaching' parts have been recorded here. These particular Satsungs are taught by Swami Sadasivananda, a friend, teacher, and spiritual leader. He lives what he espouses and these brief teachings are truly joys to behold.

If you are considering taking the Sivananda Teacher's Training Course, you can hear Swami Sadasivananda give an introduction below under 'Miscellaneous'. And if you are looking for a great yoga class, especially if you are familiar with Sivananda yoga, the 95 minute Yoga 'meditation' class also under 'Miscellaneous' will take you to a whole new level. This is truly how Yoga was meant to be practiced. It was the last class of our course.

Rush pens, or should I say, orates, a touching tribute to a giant in the conservative movement. A highlight:

I went through one year of college and I was having trouble, flunked speech, should have called the course Outline 101. Flunked speech, did every speech, showed up at every class and still flunked it. I said, "This is not for me." And one morning I was sitting in the house at 20 years old and I said, "I'm quitting." I told my dad, "I'm quitting. I can't handle this. I'm leaving. I've got a job offer in Pittsburgh, and I'm going to go there." And, of course, he came from the Great Depression, and that was the worst news he could hear. The formative years of his life were the Great Depression and World War II. You go through the Great Depression, and if you didn't have a college degree you had no chance of getting a job.

He had great fears. I'm the only member of my family I think that doesn't have a college degree. He was very concerned he was a failure as a father, and I remember telling him, "Well, I want to be like Bill Buckley." He said, "What do you mean?" "Well, I want to be able to sit around and write and think and speak," and so forth, and my dad blew up at me. "What are you talking about?" He gave me a two-hour lecture on, "Where do you think Bill Buckley went to become what he is? Do you think Bill Buckley just sits around and writes and thinks and speaks, and people like you have this reaction to him?" I got a serious lecture on how hard and time-consuming achievement is. When you see the output of someone's work but you don't see what goes into it, you can make the mistake of assuming it comes easy to them, especially those who are great at what they do. They make it look so easy that you think you could do it, too. And you form impressions of how they do it, and you see these people on television and so forth, you really don't see any of the prep or any of the hard work that goes into the final product, and my dad was right about that.

So it wasn't until I left the formal academic setting at age 20, that I got serious about education above and beyond what I'd learned at home. I was reading omnivorously and voluminously, meaning anything I could get my hands on that was of interest to me.

Isn't it interesting? Rush Limbaugh flunking speech in college? Rush's Dad was right about what it takes to succeed and the humility necessary to achieve accomplishment, but wrong about the importance of college.

The school, which will run from fifth to eighth grades, is promising to pay teachers $125,000, plus a potential bonus based on schoolwide performance. That is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, roughly two and a half times the national average teacher salary and higher than the base salary of all but the most senior teachers in the most generous districts nationwide.

The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.

“I would much rather put a phenomenal, great teacher in a field with 30 kids and nothing else than take the mediocre teacher and give them half the number of students and give them all the technology in the world,” said Mr. Vanderhoek, 31, a Yale graduate and former middle school teacher who built a test preparation company that pays its tutors far more than the competition.

In exchange for their high salaries, teachers at the new school, the Equity Project, will work a longer day and year and assume responsibilities that usually fall to other staff members, like attendance coordinators and discipline deans. To make ends meet, the school, which will use only public money and charter school grants for all but its building, will scrimp elsewhere. <.>

Ernest A. Logan, president of the city principals’ union, called the notion of paying the principal less than the teachers “the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, called the hefty salaries “a good experiment.” But she said that when teachers were not unionized, and most charter school teachers are not, their performance can be hampered by a lack of power in dealing with the principal. “What happens the first time a teacher says something like, ‘I don’t agree with you?’ ”

Only when teachers and the educational system is outside the control of the teachers unions can these sorts of experiments happen. This decentralized control, bottom up approach to education with the money going strait to the classroom might just work.

While millions of Haitians go hungry, containers full of food are stacking up in the nation's ports because of government red tape — leaving tons of beans, rice and other staples to rot under a sweltering sun or be devoured by vermin. <.>

Jean-Paul Michaud, a Canadian, said he sailed to the capital of Port-au-Prince late last year carrying 60 pounds of donated clothing and medicine — and that port authorities demanded $10,000 in "customs fees" — code for a bribe to make the fees disappear.

"I'd have rather thrown the aid in the water," said Michaud. The Canadian Embassy intervened and the fee was later waived.

Krabacher's group says it has paid nearly $16,000 in fees in the first six weeks of 2008 alone, compared to $23,418 for all of 2007.

British charity Oxfam has had to pay the Sri Lankan government $1m in import duty for vehicles used in tsunami reconstruction work.

As oft stated: it is not lack of food, commodities, health care, etc.. which cause a lack of these things. Socialism causes shortages of these things. The people of Haiti could produce all they need and more if it wasn't for the criminals running their government. Even without the corruption, this aid is a major reason for perpetuating and encouraging the socialism already present in Haiti, and further disrupting their economy. Indeed, throw the aid in the water! And burn our tax dollars! Better that than have our government spend our money hurting the good people of Haiti.

DiFiore said in a letter to the clinic’s owners that Desai ordered his nurses to reuse syringes and reuse single-dose vials of medication when administering anesthesia to patients who received endoscopic procedures. The practice, which allowed cross contamination of patients’ blood, caused six people to become infected with hepatitis C.

Desai, who was a member of Gov. Jim Gibbons’ transition team in 2006, is the majority owner of the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada

Desai used to sit on the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, which has now launched an investigation into the clinic. <.>

Thank goodness we have medical licensing by the government. Who knows what horrors free enterprise would yield?

“The fact that, once caught, you have agreed not to engage in a technique well known to the medical community to subject patients to death or serious illness again does not persuade me that you won’t do it again,” DiFiore wrote.

Regardless, this scandal has been rocking the Las Vegas medical community since the beginning of this week. Our office has had over 50 lab referrals to check for Hep A, B, and C. The staff has been quite frustrated with all the calls coming in as well. The papers told people they could get tested at UMC Quick Cares, but the UMC gubermint people who told the papers this forgot to tell their employees, and so people were getting turned away and being told to 'see their primary care physician'. So, it's been one screw up and mix up after another...

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

When pain enters the consciousness the soul uplifts, the mind becomes joyful, and thanks and praise is given to God. What a wonderful opportunity, delivered by pure grace, sent by the wings of angels. Oh pain, oh suffering, oh teacher, lead me to the light and fill me with your blessings. How grateful am I for your coming.

Previously it was discussed that happiness does not arise from external events; life experience does not emerge from the set, but from the camera; our current perceptions, our very consciousness, arises entirely from within, and changing the processing, without exclusive focus on the input is the key to increasing our happiness and understanding.

If this premise is true, then pain and suffering must be viewed quite different from standard convention. Pain is a red flag, a blaring "fix me!", a lighthouse in a frothy sea of turbulent emotion and thought. Pain is our imperfections jumping out at us, allowing us to address them and increase our understandings.

In fact, should we not be as thankful for pain as we are for so-called 'gems' (vexing persons that appear to give us pain)? If not for pain how can we know we are walking in the wrong direction, with our habits, values, and ways of thinking askew? Look around, what it is that really gives us pain shall be our greatest uplifter if we open our hearts to it and act and address it in the proper way.

Of course, it is easiest to blame the outside world for pain in order to temporarily ignore or suppress these negative thoughts and feelings. These maneuvers are undertaken as true self revelation about the nature of the pain would cause much angst and violently shake our egos and worldviews, causing great further discomfort in the short term. It is not human nature to ponder and philosophize and think of long term happiness during a painful experience, rather we become emotionally fixed and attached to our immediate experience and seek to relieve it through any means necessary. It requires great concentration and strengthening of the higher thought processes to detach from the immediacy of painful sensual experience and emotion. Indeed, much of our conscious experiences could be said to resolve around this constant mental battle between short and long term pleasure. The simplest example is one we've all experienced: eating those chocolates and feeling immediate gratification vs long term tummy ache and accompanying mental cloudiness. The way we feel after such a sugary gorge tells us many things if we care to listen.

If viewed correctly and carefully pain could even become a central plank of spiritual and emotional development. It is sought out joyously (although not sadistically), for each new discovery means more eventual healing, greater enlightenment and increased emotional maturity. But these advances are only possible if pain is viewed as almost a form of pleasure, an apparent oxymoron except that one attempts to witness the pain as third party, to detach from suffering in order to appreciate beauty in its meaning. In other words, when the intellectual joy, the higher thought processes overcomes the natural emotional fixation of pain, true learning and permanent happiness unfold.

Phobias are the easiest pains to cure because they are obvious and blatant, as by definition we understand their nature. Most people with phobias understand their sufferings are irrational and so the higher mind already has a decent jumpstart. It is the deeper fears which are tricky enough to entice the logical reasoning part of our mind into believing we are justified in our fear (or that our fear comes from an external event). It is necessary to cure these phobias not because of the inconvenient avoidance of said phobia, but because the emotion of fear itself, our emotional wrong understanding of the world is rooted in our phobias. Better said, a phobia is worth eliminating because the very idea of fear in an external event is incorrect and strongly perpetuated (emotionally) by a phobia.

One proven method of curing phobias is by desensitization. What is your phobia? Heights? Force yourself to the tallest place you can tolerate and embrace the fear as it envelops you. Observe it as a scientist would observe electrical fear impulses in a brain on a machine. It will soon lessen. Bugs, insects, bees, wasps, spiders? Seek out these creatures and meditate upon them, observe the mind as it recoils in abject terror; think, 'silly mind, bless the fear in thee'; laugh at the mind as you would a young child. Such phobias are more disturbing and their effects more widespread then we realize. They invade even our dreams, unsettling the subconscious, enabling nighterrors, and ruining countless hours of sleep.

I recall a story by a lecturing psychologist about a woman who had been in a horrible car wreck and thereafter had a panic attack every time she sat behind the wheel. He put her in his car and said, "we're going to stay here until you can drive." She immediately had a panic attack, but didn't leave the car. She had another one when she started to drive. His response, "go ahead wreck it!". She pulled over and recovered and then drove and drove. It took them all afternoon, but she was cured. It felt as if a great weight had been lifted and her whole emotional state shifted, better sleep, and sense of well being ensued. That she is now able to drive is somewhat irrelevant, the improvement of her life and PTSD symptoms is the real story.

Dislikes are more insidious than phobias because there often appears to be some valid reasonings for them. In other words, the higher thinking mind will often concur with the lower emotional mind. When we smell putrid milk, we actually feel emotions of disgust. These emotions are painful (smelling putrid milk is not fun!), yet we reason this pain is natural and is there to tell us not to drink the milk. Now this is true, from an evolutionary perspective, but why can't we function without being consumed by these negative emotions arising? There is nothing intrinsically 'bad' or 'negative' about putrid milk. It simply is what it is. The qualities we assign it are false, arising from imperfections within us. In fact, could one not experience the beauty of spoiled milk, and still refrain from drinking it? Certainly there is something beautiful about the unique sensation of spoiled milk as it percolates through our consciousness. Indeed, there is something glorious about the very nature of consciousness itself, regardless of origin and flavor.

Upon reflection, we might even find our sensation of the spoiled milk, negative though it may be, highly dynamic, with our given experience greatly dependent on our immediate mood. For example, if we are already stressed and late to work vs on the phone with a loved one sharing a happy moment, our discovery of the spoiled milk will manifest quite differently. If we could raise our base happiness to a certain bar, we might even find our experience of the spoiled milk not painful at all. In fact, we might find very little actual pain in life, a goal only achievable by the embrace of the very pain we seek to eliminate. In fact, theoretically, pain and suffering cannot truly cease and joy, knowledge, and understanding cannot permeate in everything we do until our desire to eliminate pain is extinguished, along with, finally, even our joyous desire for pain to show us the nature of ourselves.

Similar to phobias, taming our likes and dislikes involves some manner of desensitization technique, going against the grain, prodding our stubborn minds, until we realize our dislikes are also our own creations. People we dislike reflect things about ourselves we dislike. When we judge or insult or slander, we really judge, insult, and slander ourselves, and stain only our own character. Practically there exists much difficulty in how the mind processes an attempt down this path. For example, consider 'Dharma', an Hindi yogic term, which can be defined as a combination of individual fate, duty, and talents (and which will be subject of a future essay :)). We like what we are good at, are drawn to do our part in the world, and are naturally attracted to people who help us facilitate beneficial information exchange, ie aid us in accomplishing various physical and mental tasks. How one can walk this razors edge, this fine line, between discomforting the mind to awareness of its fallacious dislikes and the danger of straying from one's Dharma, really has no logical answer. Increased discernment and perceptions of the finer points in this balancing act will surely become clearer with judicious meditation and spiritual practice.

Some of those versed in western psychology and psychiatry have arrived at many of these conclusions independently of our friends to the east. For example, Dr Frattaroli in the previously reviewed 'Healing the Soul in the age of the Brain', describes depression as the body/subconscious telling the conscious mind something relevant and important. He describes cases where a change in job, relationship, or other major ( or even occasionally minor) life adjustment completely cured a patient's depressive state. In effect, listen to the pain, what is it telling you, where is it coming from? When the mind is calm, ideally after consistent meditation/prayer, or even purposeful sleep, the answers may be more perceptible.

Major depression and other more serious cases of mental illness are much more difficult. These cannot be cured simply by changing relatively superficial aspects of one's life. These states may indicate pathology of an entire worldview, emotional circuitry, and value system, notwithstanding possible biomedical components. Part of the mind has strayed so far from what leads to long term happiness and thus major depression, also described as self loathing, is the body's way of alerting the mind to these transgressions. Yet even this depression, horrible though it may be to experience, should be approached and appreciated in the same fashion as minor pain. It will be far more difficult to assess from whence and where the sufferings originate from and the mind will likely have to undergo major reprogramming over a long period of time before positive results are seen. Certainly anti-depressants along with major lifestyle changes can give one a temporary or permanent helpful crutch in these cases, especially if the cause is more organic, stemming from an underlying medical condition.

We often get caught up in futile intellectualization of the reasons for what we interpret as 'senseless pain': the death of a family member, a random car accident, a freak illness, the suffering of a young child. However, this line of reasoning starts with the premise that something is 'bad'. But is not this attempt at objectivity clouded by subconscious arrogance? How can we know every effect of a particular event which transpires? After all, even the most painful and horrendous events must have some benefits; perhaps hidden due to societal bias against analysis of human growths stemming from tragedy and suffering. Or, perhaps these gifts are selectively given to those who quietly view the event from the proper perspective.

If we are to travel down this path of skewed intellectualization, it may be best to instead start with the premise that the world and humanity are constantly evolving towards the positive. It is certainly true that humanity, as a collective, is spiraling towards ever greater and more positive economic, political, technological, social, and, most importantly, spiritual/religious development. Perhaps it is better to trust in this than dwell on the 'unfairness' of a particular event or causes behind our particular mental state or a mental shockwave ricocheting through a particular community.

Which brings us to a final point, our roll in this interacting network, this computing living biological matrix of humanity. When we face and learn from our pain, our discomfort, and our dislikes, we alleviate not only our own suffering, but also the sufferings of others. Consider, again, the case of 'gems', persons who we dislike, loathe, or are even treated badly by. If the higher mind is able to overcome the illusions of rising negative thoughts and emotions, we help not only ourselves but also our 'adversary'. By an 'unwarranted' gracious or generous act or manner the offending person is faced with a perfect mirror, and the nature of their own actions and thoughts suddenly loose camouflage and finally percolate into consciousness. In fact, circumstances permitting, great positive learning can transpire if one makes a special habit of forced interaction with people the mind perceives to dislike or disapprove of. A dark brooding person who lashes out at those around them is begging for this type of treatment from those more advanced souls floating around the network. Serving others in this way not only enlightens the self, it benefits the entire world. Aligning oneself with God's will in such a selfless manner will surely bring forth the greatest glory and happiness.

The United States government's involvement with technological innovation is long and convoluted. Throughout history, every successful military power has relied on innovation to defeat its enemies. Cell phones, video games, the internet, and nuclear power are just a few examples of current technologies that were originally developed and are still used by the United States government for militaristic purposes.

Innovation has not always required governmental sponsorship, however. Before the federal government grew into extraordinary size in the 20th century, our best and brightest were able to fund their own research and only needed the government to enforce patent laws. Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and the Wright Brothers were all able to flourish in this open and free environment.

But as the government became bigger and its ambitions grew, it needed the aid of the smartest scientists to achieve its goals. The problem is that anyone smart enough to be at the forefront of innovation is also able to understand the implication of his work. More often than not, the government is investing the taxpayer's money in researching and developing methods for killing large amounts of people most efficiently. During WWII, Werner Von Broun was forced into working for Hitler to develop the V-2 rocket that pummeled the British landscape. He was against the war and was eventually extracted to the United States, where his work became integral in the development of our space program. Another immigrant inventor, Albert Einstein, provided the knowledge and foresight crucial to the success of the Manhattan Project, which provided the United States with the world's first nuclear weapon. Einstein would later rail against nuclear testing and the development of further bombs. In this cause he was joined by Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, and Albert Schweitzer. These men possessed the great minds that could see the big picture implications of the Unites State's government's short-sidedness. Unfortunately, they were ignored.

As the government cannot always attract the best and the brightest directly, they rely on other means. In recent years, DARPA and NASA have held open competitions pitting independent groups of engineers against each other to develop the next generation of autonomous vehicles and spacesuit equipment. Engineers do not want to responsible for creating technology that brings about the destruction of countries and their peoples, so the government finds creative ways to leech off of their work.

Today, our biggest concerns should focus on the relationship between the internet and our government. What was once only a small project under DARPA has now become an inextricable part of today's society. It is redefining almost every aspect of our working, social, and emotional lives. It also appears that the internet has finally caused a drastic change in the politics of our country.

The internet has re-defined what "grass-roots" means. It is a tool through which truly populist movements can take hold in a country that has been so long divided. People have been given a new medium for education and unbiased truth, which has allowed for more people to gain a more full understanding of the underlying politics of our country than ever before. People who have been enlightened through free and open sources are no longer able to accept the lies and misinformation promoted through our history books, mass media, and most of our presidential candidates. The internet has allowed people to spread these "radical" ideas through their social networks, both online and in the real world. This revived interest in our history and current state of affairs could result in a government much more responsive to the will of the people, as they are able to organize and gather much more freely than ever before. If the two-party system (an obvious misnomer) is unable to adapt, then its very existence is put in a precarious position.

Although the internet has provided us with great possibilities, there is also a darker side to it and the future it may provide for us is dim. Any corporation willing to do business in China is required to comply with the country's regulatory policies and ban any information that is deemed illegal. The government of China does not want its people to have access to certain ideas and historical events, because providing people with truth and the means of disseminating it across such a large populace would be very dangerous for the continued one-party rule. Watching the CNN/Youtube debates some months ago, one could see a very similar form of censorship under the guise of letting the "people" have a voice. (This is not very surprising, as Google, owner of Youtube, is actually a Federal government contractor.) If the government was to further regulate what information is to be considered legal, certainly all of our big corporations in the US would have to comply, probably without the people of the United States ever being aware of it.

The ambitions of certain technology companies become rather scary when viewed in conjunction with our government's actions and plans for the future. The technology industry was abuzz for a long time about the GPhone, but some months ago we learned that instead of actually releasing a handset like Apple did, Google would actually be releasing an operating system. Google worked with over 30 other companies to create an open and free mobile platform, Android, that can run on any handset. Additionally, Google is going to be bidding large amounts of money in the FCC's 700 MHz auction. Google engineers have also recently showed that they can accurately triangulate the position of any cell phone (even if it does not have GPS). All of this coupled with the fact that Google has bought a massive amount of "dark fiber" (unused fiber optic cable that was laid before the bursting of the tech bubble) means that telecommunications as we knew it might soon be coming to an end. Google will be able to provide incredibly fast, easy, reliable, and cheap service to anyone who is running Android on his or her phone. However, this would also provide one company with unprecedented amounts of personal information.

But we should not have anything to fear though, because Google's motto is "Don't be Evil" and seems so user-friendly, right? Well, even if Google maintains its integrity and never hands over private information to our government, the danger for abuse is still there. The government can piggy-back on the innovative work of Google engineers to serve its needs. The CIA and military use the internet to combat Al-Qaeda, which they created and which also uses networks for means of organization, planning, and recruitment. However, I fear more and more that our government will be turning its eyes inward in the name of national security. The implications of this are tremendous, especially when one considers that our government has a "torture first, charge later – if at all" policy. The idea of a pre-emptive strike against our enemies, which was used to invade Iraq, could quickly be applied to American citizens whose data indicates that they might be a threat against the government. Someone who has never committed a crime against this country, but stands in opposition to its policies, could secretly be interrogated and detained without trial. The groundwork for this action has already been laid by the notorious federal legislation that has destroyed our civil liberties and ripped apart our Constitution. Currently, the powers that be are seeking legislation that would give immunity to telecommunication businesses that have illegally complied with the government's spying on its own citizens. This would be just another instance of how the government hijacks technology that was created with the most benign of intentions and turns it to serve its own agenda.

Technological innovation could certainly prove a great ally in the spreading of truth and democracy. Unfortunately, it could also be the means by which fewer people are able to oppress and enslave ever more of the world's population. Let us all make sure it is used for the former. The world of George Orwell's imagination provides for interesting literature, but is most certainly not a desirable future.

People born outside the United States make up about 35 percent of California's adult population but account for about 17 percent of the adult prison population, the report by the Public Policy Institute of California showed.

According to the report's authors the findings suggest that long-standing fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are unjustified. The report also noted that U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate more than 2 1/2 times greater than that of foreign-born men.

"Our research indicates that limiting immigration, requiring higher educational levels to obtain visas, or spending more money to increase penalties against criminal immigrants will have little impact on public safety," said Kristin Butcher, co-author of the report and associate professor of economics at Wellesley College.

The study did not differentiate between documented immigrants and illegal immigrants.

English has spread not because of any innate linguistic superiority, but because of the relative economic freedom here in the United States. Chavez's attempt to control common culture is doomed to failure, as well as demonstrating his belief in the power of central planning. Also:

This story is interesting because it entertains the possibility of revolutionary advances in patient care. What a great way to empower patients: give them access to their own records instantaneously on the internet. It would certainly facilitate their ability to look up the latest treatments for their health issues and even such details as the interpretations of various lab values. Perhaps, with the proper motivation and study, medically savvy patients might even make diagnoses their healthcare provider(s) might miss. I can tell you from personal experience the constant frustrations and delays occurring as patients are unaware of what medications they take, as docs struggle to get that latest Xray or MRI report, or have the report and want to view the image. Patients, docs, and medical staff spend hours on the phone trying to access and receive this or that. If patients information was stored on the internet, this content would be easily accessible by tech savvy docs and patients.

However, this is not a new idea. There are current internet programs which seem similar to google's proposals, but just haven't caught on in sufficient popularity. There already exists a plethora of non internet based electronic medical record programs in use, especially in HMO's, one of their inherent advantages of scale. HMOs also have been utilizing programs like e scripts, electronic prescriptions.

But I mostly disagree with the 'concerns' of those expressed in this article. I think one of the fundamental rights of privacy must be the right to give up that privacy. For instance, I would willingly give up my privacy to attain personal advertisements on TV. I enjoy gmail, and have even, on occasion, clicked on some of the links (targeted advertisements) that appear on the sidebars of my emails. For example, I would love to see political candidate commercials, drug advertisements, and maybe some yoga and health food ads :) while watching TV, as opposed to the junk that normally spews forth. It's both more beneficial and efficient for me and the advertisers!

Much of the time technology is in place to deliver these 'privacy violations' to those who want them, but, as is their want, the do-gooders in congress put a stop to the attempts and innovations of these private companies with various privacy acts. The one I am most familiar with is HIPPA, the health privacy act, which was aptly described, "as about as effective as the post office in a snow storm", by a retired family practice doc of 20+ years at our school. We've heard the act denounced in many a doctor office.

IMO, privacy is an important concept; after all, the core of libertarian thought is self ownership. All our medical records, our mail records, and all our private activities belong to us. But it is also our right to sell, barter, or give away these rights as we choose with no strings attached. And it is our right to seek out programs that explicitly violate our privacy.

Where those concerned with the vast amounts of information being acquired and acquiesced by google and other private companies in the digital age have a valid point is regarding the constant danger of government coercion, corruption, and malevolent corroboration of these private companies and, even worse, independent government stockpiling and fishing for information.

A funny thing is it not? Those passing the laws limiting our right to give up our own privacy are themselves the biggest dangers and current thievers of our privacy, not withstanding the rest of our precious freedoms.

Asked how the ruling would affect Microsoft's dominance, she said she hoped Microsoft's 95% market share would decline -- conflating Microsoft's near-total share of operating systems on desktop PCs with its share of computer servers, which is what the case centered on and which is lower.

Asked what share she thought would be better, she suggested a major fall -- well more than "a couple of percentage points."

What business is it of government what percentage a private corporation holds in the market?

Kyle Hunt, guest author, and hopefully a future regular contributor has penned the following, exclusively for neoperspectives.com:

The recent months and years of my life have been spent in deep contemplation. I have studied as much as possible from as many different sources as are available. The reason for this is that it had become apparent to me that the most fascinating questions cannot be answered, let alone even asked, by specializing in one field alone. Attempting to synthesize broad amounts of data from thousands of years of histories and beliefs can be rather difficult, but the knowledge that can be gleamed is well worth the effort. This journey through the collected information of the world is leading me to some “non-traditional” views and beliefs.

This particular story starts some months ago with a renewed interest in politics. Since I first registered to vote some years back, I have been a Republican. I am a believer in minimal government, non-interventionism, and personal freedom. The problem was that no candidate proposing those things was ever offered to me, and as such, I had not been able to vote. I do not believe in choosing between two evils, as there is no “lesser” in my mind.

But then along came Ron Paul! I was fascinated with this man, his ideas, and most significantly the spirit that he was able to awaken in the hearts of people all around the world. In a fit of inspiration, I penned some predictions for the future and sent them to Lew Rockwell, the famous libertarian scholar. He omitted some of the more controversial and long-term predictions and posted the article on his website as The Political Earthquake.

Almost as soon as the article was published, emails started flooding my inbox. People from a wide range of locations, professions, and beliefs reached out to me. Some gave me suggestions for future articles, others told me stories, and a few thanked me for putting words to that which they felt deep down, but could not express. It was an overwhelming feeling to have been able to affect so many people.

I continued to write about my visions for the future and my analysis of the past, but nothing was able to affect as many people so intimately as my thoughts on Ron Paul. This became ever more evident a few weeks later when I searched the internet for the article I had written and saw that my words had made their way to the many corners of the information universe. But it was not because I am a good writer, prescient, or an astute political analyst. To quote the man himself, “It’s the message!”

So I attempted to explore the message and how it has appeared throughout the ages. The history of humanity is full of mystery, especially as we are only left with only a few relics and artifacts. The average human is left out all together in many instances, as they were slaves, and mostly an afterthought. For most of our time on the earth, the collected wisdom of the ages has been guarded from public view. Although the internet has started to swing the advantage in our favor, institutions like the Vatican keep a tight grip on the assuredly controversial texts in their possessions. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed in the last century and forced into the public sphere, our understanding of Christianity needed a complete rethinking.

In Kabbalah, the Torah is studied at many different levels to achieve incredibly deep and secret understandings of the nature of God. As the Jews had long been persecuted, they were forced to hide these teachings in coded texts, lest it be used in ways considered unfit (sound familiar?) Even though most of us speak English, have limited access to unadulterated religious texts, and lack the time and will to devote to pure study, we should still look at the stories and scripture we have with a more discerning eye as they are rife with meaning.

Thus began my own continual reanalysis of the world around me. I considered the nature of evil and what causes people to act against their human(e) natures. Patterns began emerging as I saw how easily corruptible man truly is under certain circumstances. Next, I looked at the literal, symbolic, phonetic and hidden significance of three letters: X, Y, and Z. As most will not have the chance to read all 4 pages of the study (if you do - the meat is at the end), one of the discoveries I made while considering this topic was that the pronunciation of “Xy” is a very important clue to understanding religion and existence. For example, “Xy Zeus” = Jesus, “Xy O la Xy” = Geology, “Xy Netics” = Genetics, and “Xy” = Z. Although these assertions might sound ludicrous to the amateur observer, they actually make more sense when we consider the very nature of the spoken word as compared to written language. There is much that is “lost in translation.”

What never occurred to me until later was to try putting “Xy” before my own name. When I did, I came up with “Xy Kyle” or “Z Ky L.” This name should sound familiar to anyone who has studied religion or seen Pulp Fiction. Interestingly, one of the emails I received after writing about Ron Paul had asked me to write about Ezekiel, but I had not yet done enough research. Ezekiel was a prophet who one day came across a pile of dead bodies. He stopped to ponder upon the bodies and God/Allah came upon Ezekiel and asked him if he would like to see the dead brought back to life. Ezekiel, of course, said yes and God/Allah told him that all he had to do is command the bones to rise and come back to life. Ezekiel did so and the bones rose up in unanimous praise of God/Allah. Most scholars do not consider this a literal story and offer it as metaphor or prophecy.

Prophecy is something that has been studied by the people in power throughout the many phases of humankind. Armageddon is often the most widely discussed topic, especially when the world is in peril. All prophets foresaw it. They all described it. And it sounds eerily a lot like right now. We can see what man has done to this Earth and her inhabitants and the future looks grim for many. But there are a variety of interpretations as to what to expect for the eventual outcome of all of this violence and hatred. (That’s why it is a good prophecy!)

As astrology is the source of much of the information used by prophets, I began to look more closely at stars. They have played an integral part of every person’s life since birth. Stars are all over the products we buy, the clothes we wear, the flags of our Fathers, our night’s sky, and of course our day’s sky. Needless to say, the cycles of those pretty lights shining in the sky correlate very strongly with the events that play out here on our beautiful planet. Never before one to “read my horoscope,” I had not considered how much being born under the sign of Scorpio had influenced my life. Nor had I understood the implications of being represented by Pluto in our solar system and the Hanged Man and Death in the Tarot.

With an eye on the stars and a mind on the future, I decided to look at a video on Youtube, Surviving 2012 and Planet X (link – not needed) The film explains how for many years scientists have been trying to find the body in our solar system that is disrupting the orbits of our planets and making. In this vein of research, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto were all discovered. But the calculations were still off. In comes Planet X.

Conveniently, Pluto was recently demoted from being a planet, so Planet X will be the 10^th body of our solar system. But we already know about the return of X as it had caused the Great Floods and Deluges of the past. This is when the war of the gods takes place as lightning bolts are hurled from the sky, fires boil up from hell, and angels fall from heaven. This heavenly body might well be Shiva the Destroyer, Jesus (the son of the Sun), and even Lucifer the Fallen Angel (Star). The sun meeting with its shadow could be the greatest example of Gog and Magog.

Curiously, the film in question also seems to be overt government propaganda. It lets us know that the best and the brightest from among us will be taken by the government and brought to underground bunkers where they will be safe to later repopulate the world. But we should not worry because humankind will survive and we should wish our “lucky” loved ones well on their journeys. Of course the elite of the world would assume the right to use the slave’s (or taxpayer’s) money in an attempt to survive the coming Apocalypse. Even if Planet X is approaching, as it very well could be, I would prefer to watch our world collapse and eventually reborn rather than spend the rest of my time in these dimensions underground with the likes of the reptiles and trolls. Or maybe Planet X is just another false threat being offered to distract us from the real evil facing the world.

In any event, this interest in the more literal heavens is what inspired me to sit outside on the evening of February 13 (described here). The fantastic sight left me with more questions than answers, but I knew that I should take a sign from the sky seriously. Now I do not purport to be anyone of any particular significance, but I believe I can feel and “see” things many others cannot. As my acts of prophecy started with Ron Paul, so shall they continue:

The march on Washington, D.C., proposed by Ron Paul, shall be the most momentous event to take place in the history of the United States since its inception. It will be when the emperor truly realizes that he has no clothes. Not because Ron Paul is going to win the presidency; indeed, we know he will not. But remember, this is about so much more than this one man. This struggle transcends politics, race, and religion.

When the people of this country learn that there is going to be a march on Washington, they will join in. Many will want to witness the most significant event in American history in person, as it will likely not be televised. Many will feel the need to present their frustration with the leviathan, finally as a united front.

We are all sick of the lies, corruption, and death that have resulted from evil men pulling the strings of morally corrupt institutions. We have allowed them to reside in power, hidden in the darkness, for far too long.

The worst of times are still yet to come, but this event shall be of utmost importance for the world. It will be the largest count of the remnant to date!

But do not take my word on any this. Wait and see if I am right or explore these things for yourselves. We as humans are only able to glimpse a small portion of what is truly going on around us, but it does not mean that we should not grasp for as much truth as possible.

Whatever may befall us, I believe that peace is the only logical step forward in our evolution. The bones have risen and taken flesh. And now they march.

I see problems down the line
I know that I'm right.
There was a dirt upon your hands
doing the same mistake twice
making the same mistake twice
Come on over and be so caught up
its not about compromising.
I see problems down the line
I know that I'm right
I see darkness down the line
I know its hard to fight.
There was a dirt upon your hands
doing the same mistake twice
making the same mistake twice.
Don't let the darkness eat you up

No, politicians love to pander. They enjoy showboating in front of the TV cameras; they like to pretend to be concerned about an issue like steroids in baseball that isn’t really any of their business.

If Major League Baseball feels it has a problem with players taking steroids, let Major League Baseball handle it.

Waxman regrets Clemens-McNamee hearing

Nearly 79 years after it was sent, a postcard of Yellowstone National Park's Tower Falls arrived in a Boston mailbox recently with the one-word message, "Greetings."

A U.S. Postal Service spokesman says it's impossible to know what happened with the card. It somehow got into the mail and was sent with a one cent stamp from Seattle earlier this year.

One gun. That’s all it would have taken. But that campus, like all the others, is a “gun free zone”.

Mr Tagg, 88, suffers from "wet" macular degeneration, the main cause of sight loss in Britain, affecting a quarter of a million people. It can lead to blindness in as little as three months - but with prompt treatment it can be reversed.

Now he and his wife Gabrielle, 77, are selling their house to pay for an £11,000 course of injections.

Last week, Mr Tagg was told by a consultant at Torbay District General Hospital in Torquay that a course of injections of the Lucentis drug could save his sight.

But at £760 a shot, for a course of between three and 14 injections, he was told that under Government guidelines it was regarded as "too expensive" unless he was already blind in one eye.

Mr Tagg, who was a member of the RAF Balloon Command during the war and flew Wellington bombers, went for his first privately-funded injections on Friday.

Readers may recall, we've visited this drug before during our critique of the FDA's belated approval of it. Amazing how many layers of international government incompetence it takes for it to actually reach patients.

Two stories, similar in that 'public health' masquerades as a chance for established businesses to put down their competitors.:

Last May, she was sentenced to 45 days in county jail for repeatedly violating food codes. Once out, Palacios and her companeros on the streets of the Fashion District formed an advocacy group to protest what they call harassment on the part of police and inspectors, fully aware that they are fighting an uphill battle.

Not that Palacios would mind more enforcement against the unlicensed vendors who are her primary competition. You see, the typical bacon-wrapped hot-dog enthusiast, as Palacios points out, isn't likely to notice that there are two tiers in L.A.'s hot-dog-vendor community.

"If somebody comes in with no overhead and no bills and no sanitary counters and starts selling hot dogs," Smith says, "you certainly can't complete with any of that."

Due to technical difficulties Dobber was unable to blog during the past month, apologies to readers. Hopefully we can figure out the problem and he will continue to add his commentary.

For those interested, I was attending a Yoga retreat course in the Bahamas for the past month and was without email or phone contact. It was a wonderful experience and I have a lot to write about regarding this. This was my second month long yoga retreat, readers may recall some writings on the first one, I'll group those together and tiddy some things up here ASAP...

By the way, what happened to Ron Paul?! I leave for a month and the whole campaign goes to pots! :)

HAPPY NEW YEAR! Happy New Year from Neoperspectives. Travis will be spending some much deserved and needed rest and relaxation

in an undisclosed location for the next few weeks. In the meantime I will be guest blogging here at Neoperspectives. For those that don't know,

my name is Geoff Dobson, nicknamed Dobber. Travis and I met in July of 1999 while we were both spending our summer break lifeguarding at

Ocean City, MD. We spent a couple summers as roommates and have since discovered we share a similar political and philosophical ideology.

That is, we believe that limited government and free markets are the best systems of association mankind has ever come up with. So, thanks for

State officials said mass slaughters conducted any other way are unsanitary and threaten an outbreak of disease.
You see, mass slaughter is a delicate and complex activity that can only be done by experts with lobbyists, I mean, experts with expertise.

12/14/07 Reuters
Years of shoddy maintenance and mounting shortages of spare parts have left Venezuela's second-largest oil refinery barely capable of functioning, three sources at the refinery told Reuters.

State oil company PDVSA's 300,000 barrels per day Cardon refinery is currently operating at minimal rates because four of its six steam boilers are out of service, leaving the facility without enough steam to keep units functioning, the three sources said.

"They don't have the equipment. There are no spare parts, and they don't have them because they are not experienced enough to get them," said one of the refinery sources, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

This year alone there have been 12 major outages, almost half of which have been blamed on power failures. At least nine workers have been hurt in refinery accidents in 2007.

PDVSA has struggled with operational problems at its refineries since hundreds of refinery workers and engineers were fired after they joined an anti-government strike meant to force President Hugo Chavez from power in December 2002.

Chavez purged the company of his political opponents in 2003 and turned it into the financial engine of a social development campaign that has built up his political support.

Is this right out of Atlas Shrugged or what? This is the result of the state kicking out private companies and further politicizing the state owned companies.

In other news, Venezuelans voted to deny Chavez dictatorial rights a few weeks ago. Democracy is a flawed system, but it appears to safeguard certain rights, even while trampling on the rights of the individual and placing the minority under sway of the majority. Has the oil boom helped Venezuela? Their economy is tanking.

This title of this article stems from Brazilian president Lula da Silva invoking the almighty in thanks for the discovery of massive oil deposits off the coast of Brazil. But, if history is any guide, this discovery will surely prove to be a pox upon the people of Brazil. The feedback loops of freedom and capitalism and revenues to the voracious government will become unbalanced with this new influx of money and it is likely socialism and tyranny will expand and freedom retreat.

About 70 percent of Petrobras' oil production comes from deep-water wells, making it the world's biggest oil producer at such depths. But the Tupi deposit is deeper than Petrobras has ever drilled — under 7,000 feet of ocean water and more than 16,000 feet of rock, sand and salt, including a 1.2-mile-thick layer of rock-hard salt.

In 2005, U.S.-based Chevron and its partners drilled the deepest offshore oil and gas well in history at 34,189 feet below sea level in the Gulf of Mexico, according to Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling contractor, which completed the well. The deepest onshore well, at 37,016 feet, was completed earlier this year on Sakhalin Island, off the Russian coast, for ExxonMobil.

Additionally, we see the same pattern with Brazil's state owned oil companies as Venezuela's. The article concludes:

"This discovery... proves that God is Brazilian," Mum's the word as far as God goes, but here on Earth it is apparent that Petrobras may struggle to meet their 2011 production target, let alone their goal for 2015.

Following Ron Paul's record $6 million day money bomb last Sunday, he gave this great interview with Glen Beck tonight. An amazing articulation of conservatism and libertarian principles, which I cannot believe we are lucky enough to find stemming from a major candidate for president of the United States. I find it hard to believe even people opposed to Ron Paul's candidacy could come away not respecting and admiring Paul's beliefs after seeing this interview.

On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor to protest an oppressive tax. This December 16th, American citizens will dump millions of dollars into the Ron Paul presidential campaign to protest the oppressive and unconstitutional inflation tax - and the IRS, which sanctions government theft by proxy ownership on an individual's labor! (my addition) Please join us this December 16th 2007 for the largest one-day political donation event in history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each, creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000.

So a Democratic, or even Republican Congress completes the appropriations process, and sends President Paul the funding bill for, say, the Commerce Department. Ron Paul doesn’t think we should have a Commerce Department, so he vetoes it.

Congress either overrides it, or maybe with enough folks to sustain veto. Suddenly the appropriators of both parties find themselves constantly bumping up against a president who forces them, for the first time in anyone's memory, to justify the existence of this federal department and its attending bureaucracy, much less the size of its budget. In the meantime, Paul may not appoint a Commerce Secretary, since he thinks we don’t need a department. Or any of the undersecretaries. Or Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development…. <.>

But if you think Washington is big and bloated and unresponsive and voracious in its appetite for ever-larger, ever-more intrusive government, Ron Paul is the guy who would throw a monkeywrench into the gears. Official Washington would grind to a halt; it’s hard to imagine any big expansion of government with a president who made Tom Coburn look like Robert Byrd. Four to eight years, of a broken record, “No, I’m vetoing it, it’s not in the Constitution… no, I’m vetoing that too, it’s not in the Constitution.”

You think about that scenario, suddenly every other guy in the race looks like the candidate of the status quo.

1) Paul wants the government out of health care, and opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and federally mandated children's health insurance.

2) “If we reduced federal spending to the levels of just a decade ago we could get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing. There is only one candidate for president, Ron Paul who is committed to ending the income tax.”

Plus, regardless of what the unconstitutional FCC and campaign finance reform laws might say, the Ron Paul blimp is up!

This article was the first I had heard of a 'mirror neuron'. Here is the basic idea:

These neurons are active when the monkeys perform certain tasks, but they also fire when the monkeys watch or hear someone else perform the same specific task.

..when a person observes another person's action, their motor cortex becomes more excitable

The existence of these mirror neurons quantifies what we already know from our own experience and further illustrates the broad degree to which we are influences by our environments. Mirror neurons are likely very active in learning processes like infantile modeling,

But some form of 'mirror neurons' or their equivalents are present in our language, behavioral, and emotional centers, and will form an integral part of any cultural/societal theory.

For example, when a large audience sees an event on TV, like the superbowl, or a blockbuster movie, or listen to a presidential address, they all undergo similar subtle neurologic changes stemming from the same environmental input, which aggregately form the common ties that bind us as a people and influence our environmental output. Not a bad thing, if freely chosen.

We can quickly shift this into a political field. In communism, the attempt is through state control to influence culture and indoctrinate (called educate) the population in a controlled way, increasing the commonalities of culture, creating a uniformly good populace, and attaining the ideal culture and society. This, of course, presumes the state (and the those learned individuals who run it) know what is the best end result and the most feasible path to this enlightenment.

However, most societies today only do this partially; they have 'state owned media', and regulate the culture (like France and Venezuela who mandate a certain percentage of their media must be from in country). These actions send an energy wave (negative we assume), pardon the brief divergence to eastern terminology, through the populace and the mechanism is in part demonstrated by the pathophysiology of described mirror neurons.

It should also be of interest to examine the same phenomena on an individual level. When one sees a horror movie, fights with a friend or family member, or hears about or witnesses people acting unkindly, mirror neurons are firing and changing the brain in subconscious ways. When we see anger, whether in film or in real life, or even read about it, a tiny bit of this negative energy is incorporated into our psych via said neurologic mechanisms, with the result being 'suffering', ie a more negative and less happy conscious experience in life.

But, on a positive note, this also lends both credence and importance to the goals of living a good life and improving oneself. If one lives a life of goodness and honor, besides the aforementioned direct benefit to oneself in the form of increased happiness, one spreads positive energy, as others view your example and their mirror neurons fire to their subconscious and/or conscious. Additionally, this positive influence on the environment will indirectly provide self benefit in the future, fulfilling the karmic theory.

It can be argued that this post really doesn't say anything new, simply rehashes old theories in a new light, and I'll certainly accept that. A scientific mechanism based explanations for philosophy and spirituality is often sorely lacking or, worse, even discounted by the very proponents of such ideas. Different ways of saying the same thing should be pursued and elucidated; after all, all roads lead to Rome, but one can only travel one road to get there.

So, as we can see global warming has become the new 'fad' amongst reporters, blamed for everything, even oppositely occurring phenomena. Amongst researchers, it increasingly appears what they find is less important than what is to blame for their findings; academia and science is just as politicized, if not more so (due to state funding/control) than other sources. Science follows the (state) money, not the other way around.

If laws banning the use of force are relaxed when an intruder crawls in your window and you’re home, shouldn’t stringent F.D.A. regulations bend when you’re backed into a dark corner by a terminal illness? That was the gist of an argument made by the U.C.L.A. law professor Eugene Volokh in the May issue of The Harvard Law Review. Citing the concept of “medical self-defense,” Volokh contended that a dying American should have the right to buy any drug that has passed the F.D.A.’s preliminary safety tests. Currently, the F.D.A. insists that most terminally ill patients await, like everyone else, full proof of a drug’s safety and efficacy.

Michigan will impose a new six-percent sales tax on non-essential services starting Saturday, December 1st.

The move is catching many business owners by surprise.Some thought the tax had been repealed, in light of the headlines a repeal bill in the State Legislature has made lately.

Despite all the talk, the last time the repeal bill was considered was Wednesday, when it was defeated by the State Senate.

That means, in all likelihood, Michigan’s sales tax will officially go to the “dogs,” on Saturday.

“Honestly I think there's probably better areas to tax than dog grooming,” said Greta Dalrymple of Top Notch Grooming in Niles.

While dog groomers will be subject to the six-percent tax, people groomers will not. “I honestly think that human haircuts should be charged along with the four legged haircuts,” said Dalrymple. "It's both a service, so I think part of this is unfair the way they're singling out some industries versus others.”

“I’ve only been in the service industry now a couple of years, but what I see is most service businesses are one-man operations,” said Steve Rutherford of Care

And while manicures and pedicures will be subject to the new tax, haircuts won't.

Tanning is also on the list of taxable items. At Maui Tan in Niles, they worry about the impact the service tax could have, given “Maui’s” proximity to the Indiana border.

“They'll probably end up going where its cheaper,” said Amber Valentine, “they'll end up tanning somewhere else if they're paying more here.”

Michigan State Representative Neal Nitz today apologized for the way the tax has been handled.

“We had always been telling the public that we were going to repeal it,” he said, “it was a bad idea.”

“I really am quite ashamed of being a part of the process,” said Nitz. “it’s something I’m not proud of, or happy the way it’s running.”

The following is a list of items that will be subject to the six percent sales tax:

Bail bonding services
Tattoos and piercings
Carpet cleaning
Dating services
Financial investment counseling services
Gift wrapping services
Lawn care services
Locksmith services
Manicure and pedicure services
Private detective services
Skiing
Sun tanning

Chimney cleaning services
Chiropractor’s services
Dry cleaning services
Hair care (trimming, styling, shampooing, coloring, or waving)
Karate instruction services
Real estate services
Snow plowing services

As you can see all of these exemptions and nonexemptions are completely arbitrary. So why did it happen? So politicians could shake down industries, generate campaign contributions and lobbyists could tell their respective industry groups what a great job they did representing them. Everyone wins, well, except those who didn't make the exemption status. And it is not a conspiracy, most likely many of the politicians and lobbyists are unaware of how the system works and how things turn out the way they do. Or, even more likely, they recognize the system for its imperfections, but are unable to recognize their own subconscious failings and see the solution.

Hundreds of hospice providers across the country are facing the catastrophic financial consequence of what would otherwise seem a positive development: their patients are living longer than expected.

Over the last eight years, the refusal of patients to die according to actuarial schedules has led the federal government to demand that hospices exceeding reimbursement limits repay hundreds of millions of dollars to Medicare.

Just another example of the perverse incentives resultant of government control of healthcare. Here is another previously posted instance of this sort of thing occurring over in Britain.

For reasons that are not fully understood, problems with the cap have been most prevalent at small, for-profit hospices in Southern and Western states like Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma.

This may not be what is occurring in this case but, from an ideological point of view, it would be interesting to do a study comparing death rates of patients with similar conditions in for profit vs non profit vs state owned hospices. I wonder if patients live longer in the private for profit hospices simply on the basis of their private for-profit nature?

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Arkansaw Democrat Gazette
Nearly half of the babies delivered by Hispanic mothers in Benton County last year were born out of wedlock. That was double the rate for white, non-Hispanic mothers in the county. The statistics mirror national trends that have the attention of advocates of all persuasions. Immigration critics warn of looming consequences, from persistent poverty to welfare dependency. The Bush administration also makes the connection:

As demonstrated, teen and out of wedlock marriage, along with child poverty, has plummeted since welfare reform was enacted in the late 90s. This article demonstrates welfarism has not been reduced enough; that it is still prevalent enough to cause these sorts of scourges in the Hispanic communities. Not because they are 'Hispanic', but because the newly arriving immigrants are poorer. This article does not mention any of this.

Preventing out-of wedlock pregnancies is a key to its $100 million “healthy marriage” strategy for curbing welfare.

A $100 million dollar 'healthy marriage' strategy? LOL This is the first I've heard of this. Of course, this sort of social engineering propaganda can only be doomed to failure, probably just as effective as the governments attempt to influence 'drug use'.

An easier strategy to strengthen marriage would be to eliminate socialism in the United States, and further cut welfare. Incidentally, it might even lessen some of the immigration angst percolating out there.

The United States, despite our own pervasive healthcare socialism, is often accused of vast health disparities. What happens with fully socialized medicine? Won't everyone be more 'equal' in single payer systems? We've found that in Canada this is certainly not the case and Britain is no exception:

CANCER patients across Britain are facing a life-or-death postcode lottery which decides whether they get vital drugs and treatment.

EACH cancer sufferer in bottom-of-the-table Oxfordshire is allotted just £5,182 a year—while in top-ranking Nottingham the spending is TREBLE that at £17,028.

PATIENTS in high-spending areas such as Birmingham or Knowsley, Liverpool, have a 20 PER CENT better chance of surviving than those in low-spending Dorset or parts of Yorkshire.

EVEN neighbouring towns differ wildly, with Hounslow (£11,726) in the Home Counties spending almost DOUBLE Ealing's £6,650; and Solihull (£6,405) in the Midlands being OUTSTRIPPED by Wolverhampton (£10,797).

This was a very interesting book, although I'd agree with his editors, various parts were longish, somewhat irrelevant, and a bit out of scope. As the author himself says:

Every time I tried to rewrite a passage or section of the book that was overly academic, I discovered that the reason I had lapsed into academic jargon was that I really didn't know what I was talking about. I hadn't fully worked out the details and implications of whatever theory I was trying to explain, so I felt insecure about the explanation and tried to hide that security under a cloak of big words.

We can respect his honesty here, because there appears few ideas so complex that the basic tenants cannot be explained in simple concise terms over a reasonable amount of time.

Yet in certain areas he may be guilty of violating his own premise. The history of psychotherapy, the philosophy of consciousness and will, and the conflicts between the medical and psychoanalytic model, were three areas heavy on jargon and citations, yet with little substance. In stark contrast, his stories, examples, and analysis of current psychotherapy, how and why it works, and his interpretations of both his patients and himself were absolutely fascinating and the highlight of the book.

An interaction between two human beings has a number of components. First, both human beings are conscious of various feelings and thoughts, and they recognize their particular state is a result (chosen or otherwise) of the interaction with the other individual. Each person also has a particular 'personality' or 'pattern of life', which influences both the input (people's reaction to them) and output (their reaction to others). Of course, the terms are not mutually exclusive, someone who is angry towards others will often receive that anger back, possibly causing even further anger output. This leads to perpetuating cycles, patterns which can be seen throughout a persons life. Dr. Frattaroli really does an excellent job of explaining that there are very fundamental unique energies/emotions or reactions to a life experience which become ingrained deeply enough in our psych to effect nearly every aspect of our lives. Unfortunately, these patterns often repeat over and over without our conscious awareness, as they often require indirect reasoning, extrapolation, emotional courage, and the difficult ability to step outside oneself to judge more objectively.

Especially interesting is how widespread and pervasive these patterns become. Say, for instance, one has a conflict with a boss at work. Instead of blaming the boss, it is more instructive to look within oneself and view the conflict with the boss as only one of of many many symbols stemming from a deep underlying problem within oneself. The same issue likely manifests in relationships with friends, one's spouse and family, and every other aspect of life, even perhaps in relatively arcane subsets like eating, sleeping, and sexuality.

To view the fundamental of what actually is, rather than just what we see ourselves as, can be especially difficult because the subconscious may contain opposite emotions than how we view ourselves, may engage in internal power struggles, and attempt to fulfill unhelpful emotional or sexual desires. An important part of a therapists job is to act as a mirror, as a blank slate, from which the patient is forced to become aware that their negative emotions are coming from inside themselves, and do not originate from an external source. Readers may recall, this sort of idea was the premise of 'Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility', regarding the root of all thoughts and emotions. While Frattaroli doesn't go this far; he emphasizes the makeup of the therapist as key; if a therapist is consumed by the constant cauldron of desires, jealousies, and other negative emotions and animal cravings, the therapist and client relationship will soon degenerate into an emotional squabble with no favorable outcome for either party. A common criticism of psychoanalysis, from popular culture and scientific quarters, is its seemingly overemphasis on human sexual natures. While the constant Freudian references to parental and childhood sexual associations is likely very much overplayed, the general idea of unconscious sexual tension between two individuals is surely quite powerful. Sexual desires, attractions, and fantasy's make up such a fundamental portion of human psych (bear in mind it was Buddha who reportedly said, "If there were one more vice as strong as the vice of lust I should never have become enlightened") that it can offer great insight into the aforementioned life patterns and likely plays a huge role in the therapist/client relationship.

A great story Frattaroli tells is one of a young girl from a brothel who comes into a hospital with all kinds of various sicknesses, refusing to talk and refusing to take medication. The resident attempts to reason with her and politely tries to spoon feed her, but she slaps the medication into his face and he leaves irately, with her glaring at him as he leaves. The chief attending hears the report, assesses, and enters only to have the same thing occur, but this time when she slaps the medicine in his face he just wipes it off, smiles and refills the spoon and tries again. She looks at him in astonishment, and in a rage, slaps the medication even harder back in his face. He again smiles and repeats the action. Suddenly she breaks down in an intense emotional outburst of crying and sadness, but eventually she takes the medication and begins a remarkable recovery process. The key part of the story is when the chief attending did not feed into the cycle she had likely created as a protection from the horrors of the brothel. Through his actions, the chief attending forced her to recognize that he was not the problem, that the interaction between the two of them was negative entirely because of her. He was, in essence, the transparent window, allowing her to view herself objectively. He was only successful because he was able to stymie the intense negative counter reaction he had to her cursing him and splashing the medicine in his face.

Perhaps the best lesson found in this book is Frattaroli's assertion, 'the patient is always right'. In other words, the mind protects itself the best way it is able. There is a reason for peoples' behaviors. In the above example, the girl may have even gotten sick or refused to take her medicine because she didn't want to go back to the brothel; it is perfectly logical, provided one starts from the proper perspective. However, because of the power of the subconscious, the patient himself will often not be able to articulate the reasons for her actions, only a clear and undiluted mind of a therapists relatively free from personal conflict can attempt to piece together these reasonings. This view also allows the therapist to view the patient without judgment.

Another example of this is Frattaroli's postulation that the Schizophrenic brain separates the upper cognitive functions of the frontal cortex from the lower subthalmic emotional and survival neuronal firings. He states the mind undergoes this change as a protection, to shield the higher processes from disturbing emotional pulses, but the result being that a gulf widens between the two and neither function properly thereafter. It has often been stated, perhaps correctly, that psychoanalytic theory collapses when dealing with more serious biologic physiologic illnesses and this Schizophrenic theory is interesting as it puts this to the test. I would have liked to see more psychoanalytic explanations for a wider variety of psychiatric and physiopsychiatric conditions.

I thought his constant references to both his editors and his own personal life were a complimentary addition to his book. It is only fitting after all, that a psychoanalytic book, indeed any book, must be intertwined with the mental psych of the author. I can respect his intimate disclosures and honest attempt to 'bare all' to his audience. His mention of his past political railings did fit with his admittedly similar over passionate zest to crusade against the medical model.

In conclusion, I think neither the medical nor psychoanalytic model are mutually exclusive, a conclusion Frattaroli also appears to accept, at least in part. Patients may be best served with the ability to choose either one, both, or neither. My only hope is that one day market forces will return to healthcare to truly allow patients their choice of treatment and specialist, at an affordable price. As Frattaroli himself might opine, I think they will choose correctly. :).

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul rocked Las Vegas today drawing a raucous crowd of 1200-1500 people into UNLV's Ham Hall.

The days events began with a fundraising luncheon, attended by roughly 70 people. With a $1000 dollar recommended donation and $500 minimum donation the event likely raised in excess of $35,000 for Paul's campaign.

Dr Paul spoke at both the luncheon (15 minutes) and UNLV rally (45min-1hr) and signed autographs, posed for pictures, and mingled with the crowd at both events.

His speeches touched on liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility. Some highlights (paraphrasing):

"I don't pretend to know answers. I don't want to run the world, I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run your lives."

"The good thing about these speeches is that I don't say things to different groups depending on where I go like some other candidates, I never have to think about where I am or who the audience is."

However, he did tailor one specific for Nevada. At UNLV he brought up his vote on Yucca mountain, one of only 3 congressmen (the other two from NV) he said, to vote against the nuclear waste being stored here because (paraphrasing), "I don't feel people in other states should be able to vote problems onto other states. People in a given state should decide what they want in their state".

He also mentioned the money bombs, both past (Nov 5th) and future (Dec 16th), and how the press the Nov 5th bomb generated was worth millions.

Paul got his biggest cheers, standing ovations, plus plenty of hooting and hollering for his "the government should have no claim on your life, liberty, or property, which includes your income," "abolish the IRS", statement, as well as his "I'd just like to get the US out of the UN" quip.

We had 3 out of 4 major Las Vegas news media channels attend the rally, you can see their live coverage of the events here:

http://ktnv.com/ estimated approximately 2,000 attendees
http://kvbc.com/ estimated approximately 1,300 attendees

My estimate of 1300-1500 was arrived at by the fact that Artemus Hamm Hall seats approximately 1800, and is divided into a top and bottom section. The top section was not opened for our event, but only holds 1/4th to 1/5th the total number in the bottom segment, which was almost entirely filled.

In their coverage, the media also mentioned the many signs around town and his plan to eliminate the 'tax on tips' (radio ads now playing in NV emphasize the Paul 'no tax on tips' plan).

In contrast, Romney drew approximately 200 attendees to his event when he was here on Saturday. Today was a Monday with the rally at 3pm and also despite the Ron Paul campaign's unintentional lesson on the merits of central economic planning via the printing of two full page ads in the Las Vegas Review Journal with the wrong times for the rallies.

Also of note, Hans Gullickson, hired by the Republican party of NV to run the primary Republican caucuses gave a seminar to Ron Paul supporters the previous day (Sun 11/17), which was attended by over 100 people. This was more than who showed for the entire Republican party seminar weeks earlier.

Although Ron Paul is only currently polling at 8% in Nevada (up from 1% just a few months ago), the Ron Paul supporters here in Las Vegas are enthusiastic, growing, motivated, and determined to win NV. I think we will.

Paul is headed to Pahrump tonight and to Reno tomorrow for more fundraisers, rallies, and interviews.

My personnel highlight of the day was meeting Ron Paul (for the second time). I only had a second to say, "Abolish the FDA!" and he replied, "There ya go." I'll take that as an affirmative. :)

"There's one clear argument for sales," Dr. Matas told a gathering of surgeons earlier this year. The practice, currently illegal in the U.S., "would increase the supply of kidneys, save lives and improve the quality of life for those with end-stage renal disease."

Here is the basic plan, notice it is still not a completely 'free market' plan, but nonetheless moves in the right direction:

A set price, he says, could be established by the government and paid by the recipient's insurance, typically Medicare. The kidney would go to whoever is at the top of the waiting list, rich or poor. Potential sellers would be medically and psychologically screened to make sure they are suitable donors. Afterwards, they would be tracked by the government to see what impact the kidney sale had on their life and overall health.

Interestingly, the government would even save money by embracing the freemarket:

In February 2004, he and a colleague published a paper calculating that the government could spend $95,000 to evaluate and compensate a donor and still break even. The reason: Medicare pays for dialysis for all Americans who need it. Transplant recipients no longer need the costly procedure, which translates to huge savings.

"Every time I hear this talk, it makes me think a little bit more about it and question why I had such a gut-wrenching reaction against it," she told him after his presentation.

The 37-year-old father-of-two has for months scrambled to find basic products like cooking oil, beef and milk, despite leftist President Hugo Chavez's social program that promises to provide low-cost groceries to the majority poor.

"It takes a miracle to find milk," said Arteaga, who spent two hours in line outside a store in the poor Caracas neighborhood of Eucaliptus. <.>

Businesses say price controls on staple foods are so low they discourage investment and force stores to sell at a loss.

..the U.S. gives Musharraf’s government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. He needs only promise in a secret annual meeting that he’ll use it to invest in the Pakistani people.

This is to a country which is currently under martial law due to 'terrorism', pretty ironic considering Pakistan's past support for terrorism in India and Afghanistan. A country which is run by a socialist military dictatorship with Al Qaeda hiding around its territory for a number of years.

Granted, we are 'allies' and the criminal Musharraf is said to be doing his 'best' to 'counter terrorism' and, besides, since Musharraf is apparently an enemy of Al Qaeda (as evidenced by their multiple assassination attempts), shouldn't he be a friend of ours? This is like saying Stalin was a 'friend of ours' (uncle Joe) during WWII and that Osama was on our side against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Better, IMO, call a spade a spade, and stop wasting American tax money, alienating the citizens of Pakistan, spreading socialism, and working against American's foreign policy interests.

How is US aid to Pakistan helping spread socialism? Well, since Pakistan is a poor country, we might expect it to be highly socialized, and therefore corrupt, with heavy government interference and ownership of industries. Indeed, this is the case, with the military (the same entity which receives cash US aid) owning large sectors of the economy:

So if you go to Pakistan, the best neighborhoods are the military neighborhoods. They're called defense housing estates. Nowhere else in the world does the military get involved in large-scale business as the Pakistani military has.

In fact, the only Pakistani-made cereal is made by a company that is run by a foundation that is under the military. It's supposed to benefit army veterans. But the fact remains that they manage that by not allowing competition in the cereal sector. They're in the cinnamon sector, they manufacture sugar, they have a bank, they have insurance companies. Because the military is running the government, these business institutions can have privileged conditions. And so they are not open to free-market forces and competition, which undermines the growth of Pakistan's economy as a free-market economy.

A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.

Privacy doesn't mean you have privacy, is what he appears he saying, minus the newspeak.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

I think this illustrates further the growing divide in the Republican party, not just on spending, not just on nationbuilding and foreign policy interventionism, but also on personal liberty. The current so-called GOP 'front runner', Rudy Giuliani doesn't appear to be deviating much from Bush's line, as the following quotes illustrate:

"I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified."

"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Great Ron Paul interview with Tucker Carlson on the record $4.3 million dollars raised in 24 hours by some 37,000 individuals with an average donation of $103. His present total this quarter (each quarter is 3 months) of almost $7.5 million raised likely puts him in the lead of all Republicans candidates for this quarter.

Also, on November 5th over 15,000 people have signed up to contribute $100 to Ron Paul's presidential campaign in a massive 'money bomb'. Others have not officially 'signed up' but have said they will contribute on that day. It will be interesting to rock the political world and see what news coverage we get from this event, not to mention a massive cash infusion to the campaign.

The reason November 5th was chosen varies depending on who you ask, but is most likely related to the V for Vendetta movie (whom I can thank Dobber for recommending), which is set in a 'big brother' like society, with an all intrusive, powerful, and (of course) corrupt government. Characters with Ayn Rand type personalities outfox and outflank the tyranny, and ordinary citizens come together wearing Guy Fawkes masks on November 5th, Guy Fawkes day in England, to restore their liberty.

One can see why such rich symbolism would appeal to the Ron Paul campaign, pardon me, I mean the individuals supporting Ron Paul, the official 'Ron Paul campaign' does not, after all, control the campaign, a fact most Paul supporters wear as a badge of honor.

Another example of government incompetence in research. IMO, funding research is not a proper role of government. The money is better off spent in the hands of people like Mr Ventor and his financial backers.

The Iowa Department of Revenue, often accused of trying to squeeze blood out of turnips, is now searching for pennies in pumpkins.

Next Tuesday, Utah voters go to the polls to decide if their state will become the first in the nation to offer school vouchers statewide. Referendum 1 would make all public-school kids eligible for vouchers worth from $500 to $3,000 a year, depending on family income. Parents could then use the vouchers to send their children to private schools. <.>

But wait. Arrayed against the vouchers are the usual opponents. They call themselves Utahns for Public Schools. They include, predictably, the Utah Education Association (the teachers union), Utah School Boards Association, Utah School Employees Union, Utah School Superintendents Association, the elementary and secondary school principals associations, and the PTA. No to vouchers! they protest. Trust us. We know what's best for your kids.

Wow, a detailed and fair summation of Ron Paul's record in Congress. The Club For Growth nails another one!

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding.

This article is great because it illustrates why Paul may not have exemplary ratings from various 'conservative' organizations that people use as benchmarks. He votes against 'conservative' bills because they don't go far enough, or believes that fixing unconstitutional measures with lesser unconstitutional measures doesn't address the root problems.

Paul may, upon occasion, vote with Democrats, but this is mere coincidence; he arrives at his conclusions from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum.

There are no boundaries to what a single person or group can do without filling out a single government form.

This past Saturday, some of us put in an 18 hour day to finish 'er up! It's a three story sign clearly visible on the I15 between Vegas and LA. 7 million cars a month pass through here:

On a similar note, a video came out of the Las Vegas Ron Paul meetup vegas strip run!

But the Senate's farm bill, spanning some 1,300 pages, also reflects competition between its agricultural and its social welfare priorities. The bill's nutrition and rural development sections total 275 pages. The crop subsidy section totals 278 pages.

And what a congress of stinks!- Roots ripe as old bait, Pulpy stems, rank, silo-rich, Leaf mold, manure, lime, piled against slippery planks, Nothing would give up life: Even the dirt kept breathing a small breath.

I visited public schools that were scenes of barely controlled chaos. I walked halls that teemed with students 15 minutes after the bell had sounded for the start of class. I choked on the smell of marijuana in the stairwells. Little had changed when I visited a District high school last year.

I've listened to teachers and principals talk about students with barely disguised contempt, heard teachers gossip about students' sexual activity and had others refuse services or accommodations that they were legally obligated to provide.

When some neighbors considering the school called to schedule a visit, however, the receptionist was genuinely puzzled.

My neighbors and I kept calling. Two or three weeks later, school staff members agreed to let us in. I found the building clean and well-maintained. The classes were quiet and students attentive.

The next step was meeting with the principal. That took more letters and calls; so many, in fact, that Fenty -- then our Ward 4 council member -- offered to call on our behalf. I thanked him but said no. It shouldn't take a council member's intervention to get a principal to meet with parents.

We thought we were going to be able to when our son won a lottery spot in a bilingual Montessori charter school that was just starting. For three years, from preschool through kindergarten, we watched him thrive with the same teacher, who truly valued him. Early in his first-grade year, however, it became clear that while energy and passion were important in starting a school, they were poor substitutes for teaching and administrative experience.

The problems began when the school finally moved into a building of its own. Pepco and Verizon wouldn't start services because a clerk in the District's notoriously inefficient Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs hadn't completed the paperwork for the certificate of occupancy.

Staff members worked to correct this, but it took parents' writing the utilities (I asked Verizon's president how it would look if something happened to a child because no one could call 911) to get the lights turned on and the phones working.

The drug Mr Hill needs is called Tarceva. It is available for free in Scotland but not in England, as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence found it was not "an effective use of NHS resources".

It has been welcomed by cancer specialists around the world and is used extensively in Europe and the US.

The £4,000 Chantelle has raised will pay for only two months of treatment, but she is determined to keep going and raise more, Mrs Hill said.

You may never have heard of Harvey Mudd College but a higher percentage of its graduates go on to get Ph.D.s than do the graduates of Harvard, Yale, Stanford or M.I.T. So do the graduates of Grinnell, Reed, and various other small colleges.

Of the chief executive officers of the 50 largest American corporations surveyed in 2006, only four had Ivy League degrees. Some -- including Michael Dell of Dell computers and Bill Gates of Microsoft -- had no degree at all.

Apparently getting into Prestige U. is not the life or death thing that some students or their parents think it is.

My only clarification would be that having a 'Ph.D' is not necessarily reflective of 'education' either. :)

Both of the above stories share the commonalities of having their problems stem from statist control over important commodities, socialized electricity and water respectively. The results are no different than the Soviet breads lines, bare shelves in Zimbabwe, healthcare in Canada and Britain, or even 'traffic' here in the US.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.

This would be great news for media freedom, diversity of opinion, and improving the quality and quantity of news. A good first step that would ideally end in the abolition of the FCC itself. :)

Currently, a company can own two television stations in the larger markets only if at least one is not among the four largest stations and if there are at least eight local stations. The rules also limit the number of radio stations that a company can own to no more than eight in each of the largest markets.

But deregulation in the media is difficult politically, because many Republican and Democratic lawmakers are concerned about news outlets in their districts being too tightly controlled by too few companies.

But on the day of the birth, she was twice turned away from the hospital because it was full - forcing her partner to deliver the baby himself at their home.

A spokesman for the hospital said: "The maternity unit from time to time experiences peaks in demand and during the last 12 months we have seen an increase in births at the Princess of Wales Hospital.

"We can confirm that it was necessary for this unit to close recently for a short time to new maternity admissions due to the unit reaching full capacity."

I wonder if this couple will be reinbursed their tax money taken from them to finance care they did not receive. Because people are not paying for a service there is no accountability.

A great articulation of conservative/libertarian philosophy as it deals with the environment. Property rights (and Federalism, which Paul doesn't mention, but perhaps should have) is a simple and common sense approach to dealing with these issues.

The only possible weakness I can see in this general theory, is that if someone was to pollute your property, say water supply, but then went bankrupt, you’d be stuck with the damages.

I think this is reflective of the need to tighten bankruptcy laws so that people are accountable for their credit and the damage they do to others. Actually ‘tightened’ is a misnomer, the current laws should be repealed to allow contracts to be drawn up between individuals, creditor and lender. Also, people could buy insurance, both the possible polluter and the individual, sort of like uninsured collision insurance for the individual and ‘disaster’ insurance for the possible polluter.

On a different note, here is a great Ron Paul clip from NBC and Joe Scarborough.

A guest author, 'Maelstrom', has agreed to allow neoperspectives.com to publish an excellent, if strongly worded, piece on the nature of conspiracy theories and their theorists. Conspiracies are a somewhat natural consequence of libertarian type thought, they stem from a distrust of government taken to such an extreme that the distrust and cynicism become so ingrained in the worldview as to become the most prominent part of it, and are in turn liberally, pardon the pun, applied to many extraneous facets of life and often expanded to include nongovernmental parties and private institutions and individuals. Alex Jones, a radio personality, is one individual, who, although offering unique points of view in some perspectives, frequently errors in this fashion.

For an extreme example, the 'ultimate conspiracy', if you will, lol, and this one is a hoot, especially if you have a background in what this guy is spouting about:

Q We hear every day on TV about vast right-wing conspiracies and neoconservative cabals and all the various strings the administration is pulling. And so the question that keeps coming up to me is, if you guys are so powerful, why in the heck didn't you plant the weapons of mass destruction? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.) Oh, my. (Laughter.) It's kind of nice to be out of Washington. (Laughter.)

9/11: Debunking The Myths / PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11

Mr. Jones is one artful conspiracy loon. He is at least an equal opportunity one who is at least consistent in that he thinks everyone Republicans and Democrats are out to get him.

Honestly that is the only reasonable stance for someone who chooses to accept the conspiracy nonsense. The whole of the government at some level right and left would have had to worked together to pull off something of the magnitude of a 9-11. True conspiracies require so many co-conspirators that they soon collapse under their own weight of incredulity.

Conspiracies to succeed require an Al Qaeda style commitment. Politicians are by their very nature not good candidates because they are not very good at keeping their traps shut and are very self preserving and vainglorious.

They are also quick to back stab each other and exercise leverage against one another which usually ends up being their downfall. Such type also have a bad habit of writing down their escapades in diaries and spilling their guts to pretty call girls.

Mr. Jones and his like are right not to trust the government but they are wrong to believe it capable of genius and cunning that is not evident anyplace within it.

The little kings are too busy wasting money and taking smoke breaks to conspire to do anything but sneak out early when the tax payer isn’t watching. The great deceptions are those they make in plain sight. Promising free Health Care, promising to make us safer, leading us to believe learning requires billions of dollars and teachers paid and trained on a gold standard, telling us cutting taxes is spending, and that our soldiers are no better than shock troopers.

I could go on and on at the myths and lies and phony crud that is offered up on the plate of American politics by the very horrible chefs in Washington. Most are educated lawyers and that should trouble us only because it should make us truly skeptical of what it means to be educated. Believing one has special knowledge and attributing a grandness to the buffoons in Washington that they do not deserve is to confuse a man who is driving drunk with a man who is trying sincerely to run you down. Those in Washington are drunk with tax payer money and too busy looking at themselves on TV to conspire to do anything but fall prey to their own weaknesses and power hungry nature. That it leads to a socialist mommy state is not because great thought has went into it only that babies are prone to seek what makes them feel safe and those in power wish to make sure citizens need them to feel safe. They hunger for attention just as their supporters hunger to be fed and told they really aren’t perverts, baby killers, weak cowards, and lazy dumb asses.

The children of ignorance feed on the comforting breast dripping with pleasant illusions and snarl and snap at any hand that would take that breast away.

78 percent of private patients said they were there because they could not find a National Health Service (NHS) dentist, and only 15 percent because of better treatment.

Overall, six percent of patients had resorted to self-treatment, according to the survey of 5,000 patients in England, which found that one in five had decided against dental work because of the cost.

Almost half of all dentists -- 45 percent -- said they no longer take NHS patients, while 41 percent said they had an "excessive" workload. Twenty-nine percent said their clinic had problems recruiting or retaining dentists.

"These findings indicate that the NHS dental system is letting many patients down very badly," said Grant.

Readers may recall previously posted stories on British Dental service see, 1, 2, 3, 4...

The Ron Paul Las Vegas Meetup group held two strip drives this weekend, with about 10 cars/trucks and a massive RV as the kingmaker. Blaring horns, big crowds, flag and sign waving, we were a sight to behold!:

Interesting coincidence, we ran across this guy, or he stumbled across us somewhat in his drink, who had never heard of Ron Paul! The one running for president that is... :)

In other news, check out what these folks did over the past weekend. Regardless of one's political persuasion, you gotta give 'em credit, their effort and diligence is truly a sight to behold.

A G.M. spokeswoman, Michelle Bunker, said the company had not specifically called for a single-payer health care plan, in which a government program would be created to offer health care benefits.

Corporate welfare at its worse, GM, owing some $52 billion in health care liabilities to its union members will soon try to force socialized medicine upon the citizens of the United States.

The biggest news to come out of the Ron Paul campaign (www.ronpaul2008.com) last week was that the campaign raised $5.08 million during the third quarter of this year. <.>

Ron Paul may be the candidate who breaks through. Whatever happens, his campaign has turned into the most significant pro-freedom mass movement in modern American history, perhaps in all of our history.

However, things aren't all peachy, Ron Paul has admitted to some serious vices, which may make him unfit for higher office. :)

Also, Andrew Roth, over at the Club For Growth has told me (and given permission to announce here) that they are working on a piece, 'Ron Paul's Record on Economics Issues', due out in a few weeks time, joining those already in existence on Thompson, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Huckbee, and Brownback. These reports offer excellent in depth analysis from, IMO, the most credible freemarket source in existence.

However, it will be interesting to see how they rate Paul, as he is often difficult to pin down by traditional methods. How many Congressmen vote against CAFTA and NAFTA because it is 'government managed trade', not free trade. In other words, if you vote against a 'free trade' bill because it's not free enough are you counted as having an 'anti free trade' record?

We shall see, but I very much look forward to seeing their report. I suspect many of their members would be quite thrilled with a Paul Presidency and are, perhaps, unaware of his exemplary record in Congress. I mean, forget abolishing the 'death tax', a laudable high priority for the Club For Growth, let's abolish the entire IRS! :)

This past weekend, SOMA (Student Osteopathic Medical Organization), representing over 14,000* Medical Students, 15%* of the total medical students in the United States, passed the following resolution (only the final 'RESOLVED' statement was officially passed, the 'WHEREAS' parts are included here only for completeness):

Resolution:

References

This resolution will be passed onto the pertinent committee(s) at the AOA (American Osteopathic Association), which represents 52,000 DOs, 5% of the country's physicians, for their review.

Ron Paul raised $1.2 million in the last week of this quarter, his campaign will release his total fundraising numbers soon, and those of the other candidates will roll in shortly. However, there's no question he's on a roll.

This is an interesting article, as it purports, from a purely political perspective, how Ron Paul's stance on the war and immigration make him the best choice to beat Hillary.

When I first saw this article, I'll have to admit I saw it as an interesting but sort of an unlikely possibility, worthy of nothing more than a abstract intellectual political argument; but now I think present developments merit it more serious consideration.

The GOP also has to consider how the +50,000 passionate Ron Paul meetup members, probably numbering some 75-100k by election day would aid the campaign, plus the piggyback effect on other Republican incumbents. These volunteers will not be there, at least not in these numbers, for a Fred Thompson or a Mitt Romney.

Three years after the federal government stopped subsidizing it, the leafy crop is gaining new popularity among U.S. farmers. Cheaper U.S. tobacco has become competitive as an export, and China, Russia and Mexico, where cigarette sales continue to grow, are eager to buy. Since 2005, U.S. tobacco acreage has risen 20 percent. Fields are now filled with it in places like southern Illinois, which hasn't grown any substantial amounts since the end of World War I.

What an interesting story, isn't it? Government, even when it tries to help, even when it steals money from taxpayers, ends up hurting those who ostensibly reap dividends from its help. The free market helps even the beneficiaries of government largeness, which makes it all the more puzzling that special interests receive vast sums from their respective membership to spend lobbying government for funds and 'friendly' regulations, when in the end it ultimately comes back to bite them. True prosperity will come when individuals reject the claims of their representative lobbyists and trust in freedom.

Readers may recall in 'Amnesty from Government', it was discussed how baring 'illegals' from government funds will likely actually be a boon to the illegals and a continued harm on the regular Americans that receive them. Again, in a sense, the reasoning and logic is opposite of the truth.

I wonder what the 'Republican' Senators of North and South Carolina, big tobacco growing states that were adamantly against eliminating the government subsidy, think of this development? Or are they already onto the next pork project?
(Added to 'Farm Subsidies')

When we hear that more and more jobs “require” a college degree, that isn’t because most of them are so technically demanding that an intelligent high school graduate couldn’t learn to do the work. Rather, what it means is that more employers are using educational credentials as a screening mechanism. As James Engell and Anthony Dangerfield write in their book Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money, “the United States has become the most rigidly credentialized society in the world. A B.A. is required for jobs that by no stretch of imagination need two years of full-time training, let alone four.”
<.>

Sadly, college education is now generally sold as a stepping stone to good employment rather than as an intellectually broadening experience. Sometimes it manages to do both, but often it does neither.

An interesting take on the effect of Public compulsory education on family cohesion and values.

The only book by Laura Ingalls Wilder I've read is Farmer Boy, her biography of the life of her husband, Almanzo Wilder, when he was ten years old and growing up on a farm. I was surprised by his life, which wasn't all that long ago--in the 1860's.

Almanzo had a place and a purpose in the family, and an important one. The functioning of the farm was very much dependent on him, and Almanzo didn't mind at all. He enjoyed it a great deal. How many teenagers today can say the same? How many today just live with their families, but don't truly feel part of them? As for school--ugh.

There was something very interesting about Almanzo's life. He hated school passionately and apparently only attended a few months at the most in his entire life. Yet he grew up intelligent and well-read.

So, school, too, is a major part of the problem with teenagers today. Many have little purpose or meaning in their families, and even less in school. Unfortunately, to borrow a phrase from John Taylor Gatto, the purpose of government factory schools is indoctrination. That's why it puzzled me at first why family and school didn't mean that much to me. I especially had no place, or meaning, or purpose, in school. Indoctrination is not education, and it's always boring and never has any meaning.

Almanzo had an important place in the family, but no place in school. That's why he hated it. School meant nothing to him, and it bored him. It isn't any different today. <.>

I've come to the conclusion there is no hope for the public schools. They bore kids, they destroy their imaginations, they give them no meaning or purpose. I'd shut them down on the spot if I could. How many kids like school? Almost none. Doesn't that tell people something? <.>

As for families, I do know one thing; the State is the cause of most of their problems. Interference by public schools, interference in the economy, destruction of neighborhoods and communities...all of these things are created and exacerbated by the State. Interference by the State takes away the meaning and purpose of people's lives, and tries to replace it with its meaning, which is generally bureaucracy, militarization, war and empire.

The State does a lot of bad things to people. Taking away a true meaning to their lives and replacing it with false one is one of the worst.

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

A 20-year government effort to restore the population of an endangered native trout in Colorado has made little progress because biologists have been stocking some of the waterways with the wrong fish, a new study says.

Whoops! Readers may recall, this is somewhat similar to when the government was protecting species like the 'tiny owl' and 'jumping mouse', which didn't exist.

In 1998, officials projected it would cost $634,000 to bring the greenback to recovery, with the money coming from a variety of sources. It wasn't clear how much of that has been spent. Figures for the recovery project before 1998 weren't available.

Other federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, have helped with the recovery program. An overall cost estimate wasn't available.

In sum, not a great track record of success or even marginal competence in this project.

University of Colorado professor Andrew Martin, the study's principal investigator, said while the findings might give the recovery program "black eye," the hope is that biologists and agencies will move ahead on recovering the species before it goes extinct.
"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

Nearly 100 drunken-driving suspects in this southern Ohio town avoided convictions or jail time last year after making voluntary $1,000 donations to the police department, county records show.

In third world countries they call it 'corruption' and 'bribery', in the US we call it a 'donation'. :)

"I want to warn other smokers. We have paid our National Insurance stamps all our lives and now we are being shut out of the NHS."

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Instead, MacEachern said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required.

While it is rare for MPs to seek treatment outside Canada, MacEachern said Stronach was not lacking confidence in the system.

Stronach, who announced last April she would be leaving politics before the next election, paid for the surgery in the U.S., reports the Star.

"In fact, Belinda thinks very highly of the Canadian health-care system, and uses it when needed for herself and her children, as do all Canadians. As well, her family has clearly demonstrated that support," MacEachern told the Star.

1) healthcare (along with clothing, housing, jobs etc..) is not a 'right' as to attain these 'rights' you need to violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of another

4) explaining how freedom is good for alternative medicine. Actually, this past weekend Ron Paul had an event in Utah:

Saturday evening, he will join a small group of supporters for a $2,000-a-plate dinner where he will address his Health Freedom initiative, which focuses on expanded access to alternative and homeopathic medicine and to information on dietary supplements.

5) illustrating how insurance isn't really insurance, that the Kaiser Foundation's premises about the unaffordability of insurance are skewed because they don't separate the most common 'social planning' type of insurance from true 'medical disaster' insurance.

6) promotion of health savings accounts, decreasing the influence of of 3rd party payers, and the gradual weaning of Americans off the dependency of government programs. Here is a previous article by Dr. Paul on health savings accounts.

Additionally, the above site is a high tech construction marvel, has 'Ron Paul TV' of highlighted Ron Paul videos that play continuously. Here was a funny one I ran across.

The local Las Vegas Ron Paul meetup group generates some pretty good press coverage for Ron Paul, even if parts of the article are a bit bizarre... :)

From this article is appears that a shutdown and recall was issued after 5 children became ill from a type of bacteria that this particular farm routinely tests all its milk for. Additionally, it was never proven the five children were ill due to the milk and even so, the milk in question came from a different farm. Still, the state came in, tested for different bacteria and found 'subclinical' levels and shut the place down. The article ends with this quote:

“We are in a place that is politically incorrect…I am in the business of producing good bacteria…But every opportunity they (government regulators) have they will stick a knife in our back.”

He also speaks to recent issues grabbing headlines in the United States, referring to "the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..."

"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam." He goes on to say: "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."

Lol, a 2.5% tax rate sounds pretty appealing. But no such caliph of paradise ever existed in practice; I recall reading that Mullah Omar sat on a sort of throne and dolled out cash to impoverished supporters for various projects from treasure chests. And what up with the 'not taxes, but 'fees''? Sounds like Mitt Romney's Massachusetts record... :)

An MRI in May 2005 revealed a tumour in her brain. Her family doctor couldn't expedite appointments booked with specialists for July 19 and Sept. 19, 2005. As the tumour pressed on her optic nerves, her vision deteriorated. Afraid to wait any longer, she went to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. <.>

Worried the tumour might be cancerous, McCreith and his family wanted an MRI. He was given an appointment date four months later. McCreith went to the U.S. and paid $494.67 (U.S.) for an MRI. Armed with the scan, he saw his Ontario family doctor, who referred McCreith to a neurologist. He was examined on Feb. 8, 2006. He was referred to a neurosurgeon but would have to wait three months.Unhappy with this, he returned to Buffalo. In early March, during a biopsy, the tumour was found to be malignant and surgically removed.

There are 5-6 of these segments with various Ron Paul supporters, pretty interesting and passionate group!

He built a fence, a retaining wall, a patio and a few cement columns to decorate his driveway and now Francisco Linares is going to jail for it.

A man built a baseball field for his 11-year-old son and his son's Little League team, but this is not some fairy tale where the ghost of Shoeless Joe Jackson emerges from a cornfield to join the game. This is Danville, not Iowa. Someone did arrive to check out the Field of Dreams, but it was a city building inspector.

DAY ONE: The federal income tax is abolished and April 15th is declared a national holiday. The 40% reduction in federal revenues is matched by a 40% cut in spending. The budget is still almost twice as big as Jimmy Carter's.

DAY TWO: All other federal taxes are abolished, including the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the gasoline tax, "sin" taxes, excise taxes, etc. Businesses boom, and the few legitimate federal functions are funded with an inexpensive head tax. People who choose not to vote need not pay it. (Note: this was a mainstream view in the 19th century.)

DAY THREE: The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities.

DAY FOUR: The minimum wage is reduced to zero, creating jobs for ex-federal bureaucrats at their market wage. All pro-union laws and regulations are scrapped. The jobless rate falls dramatically.

DAY FIVE: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, like the rest of the Labor Department, is sent to that big hiring hall in the sky. Without detailed economic statistics, future economic planners will be blind and deaf.

DAY SIX: The Department of Commerce is abolished. Big business has to make its own way in the world, without subsidies and privileges at the expense of its competitors and customers.

DAY SEVEN: The plug is pulled on the Department of Energy. Oil and gas prices plummet.

DAY EIGHT: All regulatory agencies, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission, are deep-sixed. Competition is legalized.

DAY NINE: HUD is squashed like a bug. There's a building boom in cheap, private, apartments.

DAY TEN: The interstate highways reopen as private businesses. Road entrepreneurs price travel according to consumer demand. Using modern technology, drivers get bills once a month. Credit risks – and drunks and dangerous drivers – aren't allowed on the road. Non-drivers no longer subsidize car owners.

DAY ELEVEN: Government welfare is wiped out. Bums work or starve. The deserving poor find a cornucopia of private services designed to make them independent. Private charity explodes, as the American people, already the most generous in the world, find their incomes almost doubled, thanks to the tax cuts.

DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.

DAY THIRTEEN: Federal deposit insurance is scrapped. All insured deposits are redeemed from federal assets, which include the personal assets of high-level government employees. The threat of bank runs forces banks to keep 100% reserves for their demand deposits, and prudent reserves on all other accounts. There are no more inherently bankrupt banks propped up by the government, at taxpayer expense, and no more bail-outs.

DAY FOURTEEN: The shaky fiat dollar is defined in terms of gold, with the ratio determined by dividing the government's gold stock by all existing dollars on that day.

DAY FIFTEEN: The federal government sells National and Dulles airports to the highest bidder, and stops all subsidies to other socialist airports around the country. All constraints on airline prices and service cease. It costs more to fly during peak hours than off-peak, but overall, air travel drops in price.

DAY SIXTEEN: All government regulations that create and sustain cartels are abolished, including those for the post office, telephones, television, radio, and cable TV. Prices plummet, and a host of new and unforeseen services becomes available.

DAY SEVENTEEN: Centrally planned agriculture, as imposed by Hoover and Roosevelt, is repealed: there are no more subsidies, payments-in-kind, marketing orders, low-interest loans, etc. Farm prices drop. Entrepreneurial farmers get rich. Welfare farmers go into another line of work. The poor eat like kings.

DAY EIGHTEEN: The Justice Department shutters its anti-trust division. Companies, big and small, are free to merge – up, down, or sideways. Stockholders can buy any other company, or sell their stock to anyone else. Marginal producers can no longer battle their competitors with bureaucratic weapons.

DAY NINETEEN: The Department of Education flunks the constitutionality test, and is kicked out. Private charities set up remedial reading and writing programs for the former bureaucrats. Federally subsidized sex education and other anti-family programs go out of business. Local school districts become responsive to parents or close, pressured by a fast-growing private school sector (which many more parents can now afford).

DAY TWENTY: All federal monuments are sold, in some cases to non-profit groups based on the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, which owns and runs George Washington's home. The VFW buys the Vietnam memorial. There is much bidding for the Jefferson and Washington monuments. Nobody wants FDR's, so it's torn down and the land sold to a farmer. (With the federal government cut back to its constitutional size, much of Washington reverts to productive uses like agriculture, as in late 18th century.)

DAY TWENTY-ONE: The computerized financial and political dossier maintained by the government on every American is erased. The public wanders through the federal offices to make sure, in a reprise of the East Berliners' visits to Stasi headquarters.

DAY TWENTY-TWO: Equal rights are granted to all Americans, even members of non-victim groups. There is no affirmative action, no quotas, no set-asides, no public accommodations laws. Private property and freedom of association are fully restored.

DAY TWENTY-THREE: The EPA is cleaned out, with all "clean air" and similar big-government laws repealed. Ten thousand lawyers leap from their balconies. Private property is established in air and water. Americans harmed by pollution are free to sue the polluters, who are no longer protected by the federal government.

DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Americans are given complete freedom of contract, restoring rationality to malpractice and product liability law.

DAY TWENTY-FIVE: Government scrambles for more assets to sell (i.e., the National Zoo, also known as Washington, D.C.) to pay off the liabilities of the privatized Social Security system.

DAY TWENTY-SIX: Porno artists have to earn their own livings, as the National Endowment for the Arts tries to raise its budget through sidewalk painting sales.

DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Foreign aid is outlawed as unconstitutional, unjust, and un-economic. Foreign politicians have to steal their own money. The World Bank, IMF, and United Nations close their super-luxurious doors.

DAY TWENTY-EIGHT: The American people are given the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

DAY TWENTY-NINE: The Defense Department is reoriented towards defense. American troops come home from all around the world. We adopt a policy of armed neutrality, remembering the Founding Fathers' teaching that we could not have an empire abroad and a constitutional republic at home.

DAY THIRTY: All tariffs, quotas, and trade agreements are put through the shredder. Americans can trade with anyone in the world, without barriers or subsidies. Japanese car prices drop an immediate 25%.

In just 30 exhilarating days, we have established the outlines of free market. Radical? Maybe so. Me, I can't wait until Month Two.

This is an outrage. The entire GDP of the state of Louisiana is only $141 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. So the cash spent there nearly matches the entire state gross GDP. That's simply unbelievable. And to make matters worse, by all accounts New Orleans ain't even fixed!

Meanwhile, according to an article by Nicole Gelinas at the Manhattan Institute, New Orleans has earned the distinct honor of becoming the murder capital of the world. The murder rate is 40 percent higher than before Katrina, and twice as high as other dangerous cities like Detroit, Newark, N.J., and Washington, D.C.

Think of this: The idea of using federal money to rebuild cities is the quintessential liberal vision. And given the dreadful results in New Orleans, we can say that the government's $127 billion check represents the quintessential failure of that liberal vision.

I suppose the current Bush administration would like to label this "compassionate conservatism." But guess what? That failed, too.

In 1964, just before the New Hampshire primary, an average Joe named Paul Grindle didn’t particularly care for the choice of candidates running for the Republican nomination for President.

With the help of a few friends and using the most sophisticated marketing techniques at the time, Grindle created a boomlet for Henry Cabot Lodge, former Massachusetts U.S. Senator, 1960 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate and then the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam. Lodge wasn’t running for anything, his name wasn’t even on the New Hampshire ballot. Grindle and his friends mailed out postcards to New Hampshire Republicans to find out if there was support for Lodge which they found out there was. Then they mailed out fliers for Lodge, letters for Lodge and pamphlets demonstrating how to write Lodge’s name on the ballot. They even opened a headquarters for him in Concord.

All that postage spent for eventually paid off. Lodge won the New Hampshire Primary with a write-in vote, beating out that year’s eventual GOP nominee Barry Goldwater and former Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller despite all their money, all their TV ads and vast campaign apparatuses deployed in the Granite State.

Of course it helped Grindle that so many New Hampshire Republicans wanted someone other than Rockefeller and Goldwater, he just simply provided another candidate. But Grindle’s effort also goes to show that politics does not have to be “game” played only by a few professionals, or the hacks or even the wealthy. Sometimes, even the “average Joe” can play too if they have the knowledge, the gumption and a little luck.

It’s that same “do-it-yourself” spirit that Grindle showed 43 years ago that’s a part of Congressman Ron Paul’s run for the White House today.

Forget the all internet activity, You Tube videos, or Facebook pages for a moment and focus on meat-and-potatoes politicking. Out of all the candidates running for President in 2008, who among them has supporters willing to hang signs on freeway overpasses, to stand with signs outside events whatever the weather, who will volunteer their time to make phone calls or write letters to voters or do lit drops as well? Who among the candidates has supporters willing to pay for advertising in newspapers and radio out of their own pocket or are willing to write scripts for cable TV ads? Who among the candidates has supporters so dedicated that they attend his rallies thousands of miles from home?

The Ron Paul campaign isn’t spending a lot of money right now because they don’t have to. The spending time, money and talent coming from Ron Paul supporters across the country is cash one cannot measure but has become important to the credibility of the campaign. You cannot write off Ron Paul because he has thousands of supporters in all 50 states willing to do things on their own initiative while other campaigns simply spend money on TV ads or give handouts to voters like free bus trips, straw poll tickets and meals. Indeed, former Massachusetts Governor Willard Romney’s campaign has become a literal welfare agency in order to win votes.

Ron Paul supporters don’t need handouts to vote for him at local straw poll. They don’t need orders from the central campaign office either. Much of what is done for Ron Paul by his supporters is done upon their own ideas and their own initiative. For example, two weeks before the Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul supporters set up an account through Pay Pal.com to pool their money to buy advertising on Iowa radio stations and newspapers. One person made the ads buys, a few enterprising fellows came up with the idea for the ads (including a beautiful mosaic ad of Ron Paul’s head made up of pictures from thousands of supporters across the country with the Constitution itself as a backdrop.) and before the official campaign came up with their own radio and TV ads, Ron Paul’s message was being heard on the airwaves and in the pages. Plans are afoot to do the same in New Hampshire and Iowa again and to expand to television as well. All on their own they did this. That’s how devoted they are. As Ron Paul himself said. “I didn’t start a campaign, I joined a campaign.” Like the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord of old, Ron Paul supporters do not need “orders” to shoot the Redcoats. All they needed were their rifles.

Candidates for President aren’t elected in vacuums. Powerful cultural forces pull them towards the White House. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, goes on to win the Presidency itself, it will be because American voters begin to admire the plucky resolve and selfless determination of Ron Paul supporters, who created a campaign virtually from scratch of their own time, effort and resources and want to capture that spirit for themselves and recapture it for the nation.

Since 9-11, a whole nation wanted to do something, anything to help with the war efforts. A whole nation wanted some sense of pulling together and working together to help a country in distress. They wanted time to go back to World War II, where food was rationed, gas was rationed, rubber drives organized, scrap drives organized, where people joined the Red Cross or the USO, or civil defense organizations, all of this done to help with the war effort in any way possible. To be a slacker back then - if you weren’t fighting or doing something to help our “boys” overseas – was as bad a form of treason as “loose lips sink ships.” And yet did we go back after 9-11? No. Care packages, yellow ribbons pen pal letters to troops and greeters at the airport are important and nice gestures, but one doesn’t get the sense a whole nation has been mobilized to do so. No, instead, after 9-11, President Bush II told Americans they ought go out and buy more stuff. No calls for sacrifice were made. War wasn’t declared in Congress; just a resolution calling for military action was passed. They also pass resolutions on Capitol Hill to the declare National Pickle Day as well. That’s how much importance they gave to this cause. No draft of any kind was issued, so the many millions who could fight instead stayed at home to watch the war on TV while those who did volunteer fought the war in their stead. Or when things weren’t going well, they could ignore what was happening overseas completely and go back to whatever it was they were doing on Sept. 10, 2001 as if time simply skipped over that day.

People wanted to help. They waited for orders to come from on high and yet such orders never came. Instead all they saw was a war turning sour because of the incompetence of the people in charge. Then they saw a great city destroyed by a natural disaster and saw that same government bumble the aftermath and reconstruction. That made it hard to help those who needed it and only wasted the energy of those who gave of their time and effort to help with the clean-up. So where does all that energy go when its not be used? When it’s being left to dissipate on the sidelines and all that’s left is anger and bitterness at the authorities for their incompetence and their mismanagement? Well some have decided they aren’t going to wait for “orders” anymore. Some have decided on their own that they are going try and elect a man they believe is going to change things for the better. And whether or not Ron Paul could make such changes if he was elected President or get them through Congress really doesn’t matter when you think about it. Just getting to that point will show that the nation has recaptured the do-it-yourself spirit that helped to found the country in the first place.

Many books have been written about how alienated the average voter is from politics with detailed explanations as to why. Yet all of them miss this essential point: People feel alienated to something when they believe that nothing they do concerning it matters because they are removed and remote to it. As politics has become a “game” played by rich people and slick hustlers and where the game board is a television screen, voters just watch it all from a distance. They’re no longer a part of the process, just stage props for photos ops. Once upon a time an “average Joe” could be a precinct captain. He could stuff mailers or put up signs in his neighborhood working for the political machine or his wife could host a coffee klatch or baby-sit at campaign headquarters. Now people are paid to do things like this. Politicians all like to talk about grassroots support but very few campaigns use volunteer labor like they once did. Once upon a time the presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern and Ronald Reagan were made possible by such grassroots support but in this day and age, only the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone really had an “army” of average people volunteering their time for him with their undying loyalty. If more campaigns were as volunteer orientated as Ron Paul’s, perhaps voters would feel that connection with politics again and would use that untapped energy for a cause they believed in and one they didn’t need to be “directed” at. And if all that happened in the future, then Ron Paul’s campaign will be a success well past 2008.

In the above videos, 15-30 meetup members worked to cover their respective towns in Ron Paul signs and both got good local news coverage for it.

These volunteers are growing exponentially at a rate far surpassing the other campaigns:

England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.

LIKE many other British cancer sufferers before him, Rob Ellert travelled to one of America’s leading hospitals to give himself a better chance of survival.

Anni Matthews, 53, who is fighting breast cancer, was told by British doctors in February 2003 that she would be lucky to live until the Christmas of that year. Matthews, a former property company director, increased her chances of survival by travelling to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachu-setts, where her treatment was helped by new “wonder drugs”.

These two stories give us some things to be hopeful about. Despite the fact that the US system suffers from intensive government interference and regulation, we still have enough of a free market component to give advantage in certain aspects of medical care.

It also illustrates a misfixiation on certain statistics, such as the number of US 'uninsured' as many of these European countries have so-called 'free/universal healthcare'.

Heh heh... pretty funny and interesting compilation by the daily show. Is government really as incompetent at foreign policy as it is with other matters? Should we be following the words of George Washington who warned against entangling alliances and adventurism with the European powers? Could this be applied today towards the Middle East?:

The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation....

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard....

The key point of this article is not that Rove's actions were 'unprecedented', a claim I find highly unlikely, but the sheer power of the Federal Government and how those excessive powers were and will be used to hurt, not help the American people.

Two major airlines were fined $300 million apiece Thursday after admitting they conspired to fix prices on international flights and agreeing to help prosecutors investigate other airlines. British Airways PLC, Britain's largest airline, and Korean Air Co., South Korea's national carrier, pleaded guilty to antitrust conspiracy charges. They acknowledged colluding with rivals over cargo rates and fuel surcharges, which were added to fares in response to rising oil prices. That meant higher costs for international shippers and passengers. As part of their plea deals, the airlines acknowledged they colluded with other unidentified companies from 2000 to 2006.

Another anti-trust, monopoly story. By raising the price of tickets these companies are only hurting their own business in the long term because it decreases the number of passengers and opens opportunity for other carriers to break into the market for a cheaper deal. The market itself could easily sort out this so-called 'monopoly' without government coerscion, which only serves to stifle competition and will, in the long term, raise, not lower, the very ticket prices they seek to lower.

The largest antitrust fine, $500 million, was against vitamin giant F. Hoffman-La Roche in 1999 in a price-fixing case.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman's 93-page opinion rejected the government's argument that the deal would be anti-competitive in two dozen markets and hurt consumers.

The Consumer Federation of America also filed documents with the court saying that the merger would lead to higher prices and fewer choices for buyers of organic products.

Whole Foods contends that it competes against larger supermarket chains such as Safeway Inc and not just small, premium stores such as Wild Oats.

Austin, Texas-based Whole Foods operates nearly 200 stores in the United States and Britain, while Wild Oats of Boulder, Colorado, runs about 110.

Well, this is some good news for Whole Foods and US consumers; despite what our government may feel is good for us.

The judge also ignored Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's e-mails expressing a desire to crush the smaller company.

He ran into his fellow Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the then powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and chief Senate sponsor of the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere. "He strolled up to me and said: 'Well, Tom, I hope you're satisfied for helping us lose the election.'"

evens was evidently still infuriated by Coburn's nationally publicized crusade against runaway pork-barrel spending over the past two years. To that, Coburn, never the shrinking violet, replied: "No, Ted, you lost us the election."
What a gall!

The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:

Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.

Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay — until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s.

In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.

With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue. That source was liquor sales.

An interesting opinion stating that government greed, not sympathy to liberty by politicians or changing opinion of the citizenry finally felled prohibition. Will the WOD (War on Drugs) meet a similar fate?

I didn't realize the government was so intricately involved in the lending process until reading about all of Hillary's proposals to 'tinker' and expand current government rules, regulations, policies etc...

Underscoring the need to make the rules clear and level the playing field for homebuyers, Senator Clinton outlined a plan to break down barriers to owning a home and build up protections against unfair and unscrupulous lending practices.

This is an interesting statement considering it is the lenders that are going belly up, filling for bankruptcy etc... How can the lenders be 'predatory' when they are the ones bankrupt?

1) Reinstating the inalienable right to contract will allow the market to set conditions that will best benefit the 'subprime' borrower and lender.

2) It is likely the current government interference played a significant or leading role in the current subprime trouble.

The proposed guidance issued by the Federal Reserve and the other four federal agencies that regulate banks, thrifts and credit unions, comes in increasingly troubled market for subprime mortgage loans. <.>

In addition to the Fed, the agencies issuing the proposed guidance are the FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision.

Mr Chavez, 54, plans to overturn the decree of his 1999 constitution which laid out a maximum of two six-year terms for any president. The new constitution calls for seven-year terms with indefinite re-election.

The new constitution will fix the working week at no more than 36 hours. The Central Bank will also lose any vestige of independence, simply becoming the presidential piggy bank.

People can expect to wait about three weeks for expedited service, and the government indicated Thursday they should get used to it. A regular application now takes 10 weeks to 12 weeks.

It will cost nearly $1 billion over three years to handle the surge in applications created by post-Sept. 11 security rules for travel.

The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.

The New Privatization
States and cities are selling their roads, bridges, and airports for eye-popping sums.

A 2002 government study in the United Kingdom, where public-private transactions are more common, found that 70 percent of public construction undertaken by the government ran late and that 73 percent of it finished over budget. But when government contracted projects to private firms, just 24 percent of them were late and only 20 percent were over budget.

In a study that Daniels commissioned after taking office, Indiana found that it spent 34 cents to collect every 15-cent toll. “We would be better off using the honor system,” Daniels quipped.

Within three months of closing the deal, they had installed an electronic toll-collection system to help zoom traffic along and assigned additional collectors during rush hour to gather cash more quickly. The result: reduced wait times, boosted Skyway use—and more money coming in. Chicago didn’t bother with any of these reforms when it managed the road, a Macquarie managing director testified before Congress last year. Unlike the city, he said, Macquarie was “heavily incentivized” to run the road efficiently.

...employs about 2,000 people, including 500 administrators, to operate the 537-mile road. “The turnpike commission has traditionally been a patronage cesspool,” says Matthew Brouillette, president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a Harrisburg-based think tank that supports the lease.

Porter's Score on the RePORK Card

8/14/07 Club For Growth Press Release

Porter’s Score on RePORK Card Speaks for Itself—And it’s Not Pretty

Washington – Yesterday, Republican Rep. Jon Porter (NV-3) defended his record of fiscal responsibility despite scoring a pathetic 10% on the Club for Growth’s 2007 RePORK Card. Fiscal responsibility, my foot.

“Porter’s staff claimed the RePORK Card is ‘misleading,’ but the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card speaks for itself,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Either you stand for American taxpayers by voting against pork projects, or you stand for parochial special interests. With a score of 10% on the 2007 RePORK Card, Jon Porter backed up the special interests 90% of the time. Porter also scored a humiliating 26% last year, voting for only 5 of Jeff Flake’s 19 anti-pork amendments. If anything, Jon Porter is sinking further into the pit of fiscal recklessness with each passing year.”

The RePORK Card documents all fifty anti-pork votes during the 2007 appropriations process. Over the course of this process, Jon Porter voted to keep such outrageous pork projects as:

$34,000,000 for the Alaska Native Education Equity program and other programs (RC #654, 07/18/07)
$300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft and Technician Training project at West Los Angeles College in Culver City, CA (RC #667, 07/18/07)
$150,000 for the American Ballet Theatre in New York City for educational activities (RC #668, 07/18/07)
$150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium in Charleston, S.C. (RC #669, 07/18/07)
$100,000 for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum in Lansing, Kansan (RC #670, 07/18/07)
Bars funding of $2,000,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in New York City (RC #678, 07/19/07).
$50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Woodlake, CA (RC #700, 07/24/07)

Thanks Congressmen Porter for spending Nevada tax dollars on the above projects and much much more...

A woman who had complained to her GP of severe headaches for almost a year collapsed and died of an undiagnosed brain tumour.

Jennifer Bell, 22, had been told she was suffering from stress but after months of illness had finally been referred to a neurologist.

She then faced a 13-week wait before a 'relatively urgent' MRI scan could be carried out. Three days before the longawaited appointment she collapsed at home and died later in hospital.

Yesterday at an inquest in Norwich, Coroner William Armstrong agreed that an early scan would have led to much faster intervention.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a '13 week wait' for an MRI anywhere in the United States. Would this patient have survived if she had been in the United States? We don't know the answer; but it is likely she would have been diagnosed earlier... even if she didn't have insurance.

My Rep, Rep John Porter (R, NV), doesn't get high marks at all on his porkbarreling record (compiled by the Club For Growth).. No surprise to us!

In a move with wide-ranging implications, a North Mississippi judge Thursday banned outdoor school activities in DeSoto and five other counties in his district because of the searing heat.

"It is our duty to protect the minors from harm when at all possible," Lundy said in his two-page order banning outdoor activities between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. "We protect them from others as well as from themselves."

"I think the judge needs to stay out of the school business," said Sammy Higdon, superintendent of the Water Valley School District in Yalobusha County.

"Without looking it up, I couldn't guarantee that it's unprecedented," Rychlak said, "but it certainly sounds unusual. Judges are supposed to handle cases and controversies, but not legislate.

The 8-to-2 decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came in a closely watched and emotional case that pitted desperate patients willing to try unproven, even risky, therapies against those arguing that drugs should be proved safe and effective before they are made available.

The decision preserves the current regulatory system. If it had gone the other way “it would have undermined the entire drug approval process,” said William B. Schultz, a former deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote an amicus brief arguing against the early access to drugs.

In a dissent, Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote that it was “startling” that the “right to try to save one’s life is left out in the cold,” not protected by the due process clause of the Constitution, “despite its textual anchor in the right to life.”

Remember that even in the 'land of the free' you are not allowed to try to save your own life, even when terminally ill. It's simply too dangerous.

Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.

But instead of implementing the charter amendment, Kauai officials sued each other to invalidate it, with the county attorney representing both sides of the case. The officials claimed they alone had power to decide property tax issues, and hired private attorneys with over $250,000 of public funds to litigate the lawsuit.

I don't know what happened here, but it seems beyond bizarre and deserves explanation.

    Fourteen-day supplies of the seven drugs will be available at all 684 of the chain's pharmacies in five Southern states.
    "It can't be any more affordable than free," Crist said.
    With health care costs one of the biggest challenges facing many Americans, Crist said that the private sector's involvement in the solution was "a great trend."

Wal-Mart last year started offering hundreds of prescription drugs of all different kinds, ranging from diabetes medication to high blood pressure drugs, for $4.

Kmart, a unit of Sears Holding Corp., began last month offering a 90-day supply of generic drugs for $15. Now, more than 300 drugs are included in that program.

An example of private industry, the market economy, lowering prescription prices for consumers. The lower prices and resulting increase in access occurs without government expansion, regulation, or taxes. This sort of cost cutting would occur in other areas of healthcare except for the stifling conditions imposed by government.

Yet, the intentions of the Publix company are rooted in the profit motive, while government attempts to better healthcare are, ostensibly, rooted in what is considered relative purity. It is important to differentiate between intention and result. Ideally, the two can be matched, once the realization occurs that the profit motive, the market economy, and freedom can provide the best healthcare to the poorest of the poor. Once those without financial interest advocate for such policies, when those advocating positive agendas are not just those with direct business interests, only then will 'compassionate conservative' be correctly defined.

The government defended the new law saying it was necessary to protect the country from international terrorism and espionage.

Of course, the true 'terrorists' in Zimbabwe can be found in the government of Zimbabwe; the very ones who passed the law! Having destroyed and looted the country, they apparently find themselves needing protection from a restless, rebellious, and increasingly desperate population.

The lessons here can be extrapolated to a lesser degree here in the US; whether it is 'terrorism', 'poverty', 'drugs', or 'drug safety', political aims and power expansion cannot be concocted without a reason.

Upon occasion, the actions and 'fears' of those in power are in response to legitimate concern, or perhaps even they believe in the cause they are are legislating in favor of. Yet far too often the result of misplaced perspective is a more powerful and expansive government which either fails to solve the original problem, makes it worse, or creates new more critical quandaries from their actions. Only strong action, education, involvement, and discernment by citizens keeps relative freedom intact.

The statistics are noteworthy in the United States, 245,00 road deaths since 9/11. Unfortunately the author digresses into promoting more rules and regulations of our already burdensome transportation system. However, of great interest are some global trends described:

Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well.

Global prosperity is rising, war is receding, and bird flu is a phony baloney myth. The only thing that can stop this unfettered optimism, this continual exponential expansion of human goodness and happiness are those who would swing sledgehammers at cracks, and throw stones in glass cages, seemingly ignorant of the shimmering, spiraling, sparkling structures growing around them.

Some Ron Paul pictures to be added to 'Ron Paul 2008'. Some of these are real hoots:

So, I thought for this piece I'd mix the personal and the political and write about my trip last week to Chicago. Retrospective apologies, I started out intending to touch mostly on medical/health policy, but soon gave into the tempting digression of wading into the cesspool of Chicago politics.

Upon landing, literally the first thing I saw, and a rather fitting greeting at that, was:

'Daley' is the notoriously corrupt mayor of Chicago, who runs a tight political machine, using 'big government' as a tool to maintain power and, like all big city liberal mayors, as a side effect of such policies and those of his precessors, is hemorrhaging citizens. In fact, Chicago has lost 1/3rd of its citizens, nearly a million people, since the 1950s.

Now, we've always maintained that shortages are generally caused by government policies; even traffic, for example, is little more than a shortage of roads. The situation is no different here. Readers may recall a recently posted story describing the government policies in New York and how a taxi cab 'license', aka a 'medallion', is now worth $500,000. Upon inquiry, a Chicago medallion is 'only' worth $80-90k, still prohibitive enough to discourage any upstart taxi entrepreneurs.

Even more interesting were the responses I received upon discussing this with my fellow waiting citizens. One lady, while somewhat sympathetic to my views, said she thought getting rid of all oversight without any regulations was, "sort of extreme and would lead to chaos." I pondered the meaning of this response as I stood in the disorganized hour long line, with shouting government workers herding us here and there, blaring horns, irate cab drivers, and exhausted and exasperated pedestrians.

When I finally got a cab the first thing I noticed was that those responsible for the disaster at the airport were taking responsibility, by laying out some of the regulations they were burdening the taxi industry with and attaching their names in bold letters.

But, on second thought, maybe this wasn't the intention. Perhaps mayor Daley and some government commissioner were plastering their names all over the cabs in an act of political nepotism, simply to garner importance and name recognition. Of course, the latter is what was actually occurring and such acts are rather common and, IMO, one of the worst abuses of power a government official can engage in.

For a recent example, we need look no farther than the chair of the powerful house 'ways and means committee' Charlie Rangel (D, NY). Last week Rep Rangel inserted an earmark for $2 million dollars to create:

...the CHARLES B RANGEL Center for Public Service. That's right, this left wing Democrat who has probably never voted against a tax increase in his life wants to appropriate millions in federal tax dollars to go towards a building named after... HIMSELF!

But wait, there's more.

According to the marketing materials provided by Rangel himself to his colleagues, this center includes a library to house the Congressman's future papers, a "well furnished office" for him, and an endowment. There is even mention of a librarian to work on the organizing of his papers. Apparently this last part is worded thusly in the paperwork: "The Rangel archivist librarian will organize, index and preserve for posterity all documents, photographs and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel's career."'

In any event, the main reason for my arrival in Chicago was the AOA (American Osteopathic Association) Convention and SOMA (Student Osteopathic Medical Association) Convention.

I can say it was quite a sight to behold; hundreds of physicians filling a vast hall and voting on issues effecting the entire profession, the medical field, and patient care. I was happy to see many, many issues affecting DOs were decided by a private entity, the AOA, rather than the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Federal and State governments often usurp or negate the powers of national and state professional associations, and equally disturbing, in many cases artificially enhance what powers professional organizations do possess by granting said organizations monopolies over sectors of the service economy.

At one meeting we viewed a video describing the AOAs involvement in Chinese health policy, training, and advice. It described how the Chinese government was 'retraining' thousands of specialists as 'primary care docs', relocating physicians, and pursuing various other what I would characterize as 'top down big government policies'. I was disappointed to see this; one would hope that the AOA would seize such an opportunity to advise the Chinese away from such statist approaches and promote a more American market economy approach to medicine. Then again, perhaps the video was misleading, or I was inferring something that was not implied.

There were also some good discussions regarding residencies and the rapid growth of the Osteopathic profession. It is projected that the percentage of physicians who are osteopathic physicians (DOs) will rise from the current 6% to over 20%. It is interesting to note there is not a shortage of residencies in the lower paying specialties; in fact, in some areas there is a glut. One speaker even, wisely in my opinion, asked whether certain struggling DO residencies should be opened to MDs (the reverse is true). It is probably the case that scare residencies are competitive in large part because they are 'high paying'. But why are they high paying? Is it because the 'public interest and safety' necessitate the attraction of impeccably 'qualified' applicants, or because the policies/regulations intrinsic to those subspecialty societies make the residencies scarce, thus raising the salaries of those in the field? In my mind, the latter possibility is most likely and certainly worthy of investigation, as the negative repercussions reverberate through the entire profession and indirectly harm patient care by increasing the cost of healthcare, thereby decreasing access. Doctors and residents in those subspecialties have little incentive, if we consider the unconscious permeating feedback loops, to change the present system; in fact, it is medical students who gain the most from advocating a fix; therefore it seems this issue is one meriting student led discussion and investigation.

This trip also solidified, in my mind, the usefulness of continued political involvement, even in organizations which may not share many of your own ideals and values. I was happy to discover there are many likeminded freedom valuing individuals within the AOA and the various student groups. I often wondered why people like Rod Paige and other conservative blacks remained members of the NAACP, or why anyone with conservative/libertarian values would stay a member of certain unions, especially teacher's unions. Now I understand why. By leaving various groups you are, in effect, conceding the ideology of those organizations to beliefs in conflict with your own. Every group is, to some effect, a product of the opinions of its members, even if those at the top give into the temptation to abuse or hijack their derived power. Individuals can make differences and the infusion of the ideals of freedom into organizations by active individuals more than offsets any financial or personal reluctance implied by membership support.

To end, a pic with myself and the newly elected AOA president, Peter B. Ajluni, DO. He seems like a great guy!

"The prerogative asserted by the FDA...impinges upon an individual liberty deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition of self-preservation."

    The frontrunner in the primary voting in north Georgia's 10th district, former state Sen. Jim Whitehead, was the consensus choice of the Republican establishment. Whitehead essentially promised to be a rubberstamp for the Bush White House and Republican leaders in Congress.
    As evidence of his independence, Broun emphasized a Ron Paul-like committed to "work to restore government according to the Constitution as our Founders intended." While the Georgia appears to be a more cautious constitutionalist than the maverick Texas congressman who is making a longshot bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, Broun borrowed one of the most popular of Paul's principles, promising that if elected he would assess any new legislation by first asking: "Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?"
    No one was going to confuse Broun with a liberal, but he did display a Paul-like libertarian streak, suggesting that the federal government ought to stay away away from issues gay marriage and legalizing marijuana -- matters that the candidate suggested are best handled at the state level.
    Even better:

...his past positions (which have included supporting the eradication of "unconstitutional" programs like Social Security and Medicare)...

The pro-free market Club for Growth, which helped knock off at least one pro-spending GOP House incumbent in a 2006 primary, should feel encouraged by Dr. Broun's victory.

Mammography centers in New York City are closing at an "alarming" rate, causing a 171 percent increase in wait times for the cancer-detecting procedure, according to a study by Rep. Anthony Weiner.

Since 1999, 67 mammography sites, more than a quarter of the city's supply, have closed, the Brooklyn Democrat found.

The problem is that Medicare pays only $83 for a procedure that costs $125 to provide, said Weiner, who will introduce legislation to increase payments.

"Increasing access to mammograms clearly saves lives," said Weiner. "Raising the reimbursement rate will ensure that women have increased options to protect their most important asset: their health."

Most women wait at least five weeks for a routine mammography appointment, the survey found, with waits in Brooklyn and The Bronx averaging two months.

Another illustration of the dangers stemming from top down statist control over medicine. Notice the root solution, removing government from setting the prices in the first place, is not considered or mentioned in this story. What is the new reimbursement rate Rep Weiner will choose and how will he choose it? Probably no different than how our friends on the left set the 'minimum wage', arbitrarily and capriciously.

Better to let market forces set the price; not only is the 'right value' reached, but wait times will be reduced and access to care increased.

This last story has been posted before, but goes along nicely with the above mammogram article. Also, I passed this story out again last week at the recent AOA convention in Chicago, to Dr. Oliva, AOA Chair of Federal Health Programs, and Dr. Ajluni, president of the AOA (blog post on this coming soon). I'll add it to 'required reading' as well.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency, which collects and analyzes statistics related to the international oil market, calculates that oil output in Venezuela — a major supplier of crude to the United States — has fallen to 2.37 million barrels a day, down from 2.6 million barrels a day a year ago.

Venezuela claims to be producing more than 3 million barrels a day. "We hope to reach 3.2 million barrels by the end of the year," Ramirez said.

Who are we to believe? Lol, of course I'm being sarcastic; this is no different than the USSR claiming double digit economic growth despite retractions, the Chinese under Mao claimed record production levels even as millions starved, and the Cuban literacy and infant mortality rates today (the later country's statistics are even enshrined in the UN and taken at face value by many academics and even ordinary Americans).

The truth is that the thieving Venezuelans, having looted the foreign oil companies, are now staggering under bureaucracy, stifled by broken feedback loops rooted in economic reality, and strangled by trumpeting political considerations.

Sometimes, when a patient has an imaginary illness, the doctor will prescribe harmless pills called placebos. Somehow, they work: The patient thinks the illness is being treated, and the symptoms diminish or go away.

In 2005, California took a $17 million placebo for global warming. Specifically, the state bought a fleet of 1,138 Chevrolet Impalas and Silverado trucks designed to run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Trouble is, California has no filling stations that sell E-85. No such stations were scheduled to open until 2009. In the interim, according to the San Jose Mercury News, the "flex-fuel" vehicles traveled a collective 10 million miles and burned more than 413,202 gallons of ordinary gasoline.

It gets even sillier. The Impalas replaced smaller, more fuel-efficient Ford Focuses so that, in the words of the Mercury News, "the flex-fuel vehicles are actually chugging out more smog and greenhouse gases than many vehicles in the state's old fleet as much as 2,000 tons annually."

On orders from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's General Services Department has called for bids to open an ethanol station a few blocks from the state capitol. However, the corn needed for California refineries to make ethanol has to be hauled in from the Midwest, most of it on diesel-powered trains or trucks, further negating any clean-air benefit.

Said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute: "This is about California politicians wanting to be leaders in alternative energy. They just jump on whatever is sexy."

Thus, there is a bright side to California's E-85 vehicle mess. Even if the state overpaid for the vehicles by 10 percent, and even if the vehicles were 10 percent less fuel efficient, the total cost to the state probably wasn't much more than $5 million. As bogus remedies for imaginary maladies go, California is getting off cheaply.

A couple of days ago, the Club for Growth blog mentioned that the Senate had rejected an amendment to eliminate the 54 cent tariff on imported Ethanol. This strikes me as completely disingenuous at a time when the same Senators are concerned about price gouging for gasoline. Just for fun I used Google Maps to create this map showing how the Senators from each state voted. Now we have a visual representation of where the real price gougers live!

You will notice the votes cut across party lines and are more regional; a pretty cool map!

An excellent piece which delivers a more accurate picture of the number of uninsured.

However, unmentioned in this piece are a few other pertinent facts. First, that the starting number of 45 million is actually the greatest estimate within a range that goes as low as 19 million. Secondly, a significant percent of the uninsured are young, wealthy, or both. For example, it is estimated that 25% of the uninsured make 5 times the poverty limit. Thus, it is likely the graph shown below actually overstates the true number of chronic underinsured:

In other health news, Congress can't resist expanding socialized medicine even further. 'For the children' that is.

Nice long article on Ron Paul by the Las Vegas Sun. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend this rally.

"Nevada is now high on our list. It's a great state. People in Nevada aren't that anxious to have the government bearing down on them."

The execution of Zheng Xiaoyu (China's equivalent head of the FDA), 62, was confirmed by state media after the Supreme People’s Court approved the death sentence on charges that he took Rmb6.5m ($855,094) in bribes from eight pharmaceuticals companies. <.>

Mr Zheng was accused of approving the sale of six medicines that turned out to be fakes during his seven-year tenure as head of the State Food and Drugs Administration. In one case, a gallbladder medicine containing the wrong ingredients is believed to have led to the deaths of at least five people.

It is unclear if the eight companies that gave bribes are related to the six companies that were selling 'fake' medicines. In fact, a lot of what actually occurred is rather obscured. Where are the statistics over how many people have died in this regulatory environment 'run amok'?

The state-run news media said the government accused Mr. Cao of approving 277 medicines, six of which were bogus, in exchange for bribes.

What about the other 271? How many people died because they were not able to receive these medications in a timely manner due to the apparent necessity to pay off the criminal (pun intended) government.

Additionally, articles on this subject make no distinction between outright fraud (drugs which contain different ingredients then they claim) and the approval of medications with, as of yet, unproven benefit. The few cases of actual deaths reported appear to be due to fraudulent drugs, an important point because such actions are crimes, with or without an FDA. In the United States similar 'legal bribes' take place; FDA officials leave to take jobs in pharmaceutical companies and advisory committees are infiltrated with corruption.

Interestingly, the lessoned and sporadic regulation in China has lead to an explosion of growth, research, and entrepreneurial activity:

Many experts say the drug regulators were overwhelmed by a fast-growing industry where entrepreneurs were eager to make blockbuster profits — quickly. And so new drugs were popping up every day.

For instance, Mr. Wang said that when Mr. Cao served as head of the registration division, it approved 14,000 drugs in three months, even though the department had only a dozen staff members.

Where is all the death? Where is all the carnage? Such growth and innovation may not be around for long:

In 2005, for instance, the state-run news media reported that the authorities banned 114,000 unlicensed drug manufacturers and demolished 461 illegal factories.

While news reports list only a scattered deaths, for arguments sake let us multiply these by a few orders of magnitude, and assume all of them are due to lack of regulation rather than fraud. Contrast this deliberate exaggeration with just one story:

When the jab was given to mice suffering from a disease similar to Alzheimer's, 80 per cent of the patches of amyloid protein were broken up.

The vaccine is now being tried out on 60 elderly Swedish patients in the early and middle stages of Alzheimer's. Half of the men and women are being given the vaccine while half are being given dummy jabs. <.>

The jab, which is now being tested on patients, could be in widespread use in as little as six years. The most common cause of dementia, Alzheimer's affects around 500,000 Britons, with about 500 new cases diagnosed every day as people live longer.

Surely there are many people suffering from Alzheimer's who would dearly love to try such an experimental drug. These terminally ill people are prevented from doing so for their own 'safety', by their own government. Who is the criminal? The company trying to bribe their way through the government in order to release what might be lifesaving medication, or those fully utilizing the heavy hand of government to prevent that reality?

Admittedly, this cited Alzheimer's story is probably somewhat sensationalist. But the particular validity is besides the point. There are many miracle medicines out there, in the pipeline, in the que, stopped up in the clogs of FDA bureaucracy.

Yet the coverage of these happenings is strangely paradoxical, heroes are labeled criminals, the villains cloaked as saviors, and the big picture obscured in status quo group think journalism.

Surely we should be the ones looking to China for answers; not the other way around.

Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank. <.>

"I think people have underestimated the number of people in this country who are interested in a freedom message," says the Republican congressman from Texas, who has strong libertarian leanings.

A panel of experts recommended in March that the FDA approve Provenge. But in May, the agency instead asked for more evidence that the vaccine works after specialists, including Scher and Hussain, questioned its effectiveness.

Scher and Hussain told the FDA that Dendreon Corp., the small Seattle biotech company that developed Provenge, submitted a study to win approval for the drug that was so small that the apparent benefit it showed could have been the result of chance.

The FDA's surprise decision unleashed a spasm of criticism by prostate-cancer patients, advocacy groups and investors in Dendreon. <.>

"The true victims are the prostate-cancer patients whose lives could be saved. We're talking about terminally ill men, many of whom have no other options." <.>

"Why else would they object?" said Ray Vestal, a Huntsville, Ala., investor. His "Approve Provenge Now" MySpace page asks, "Hey, Hey, FDA, How Many Dads Did You Kill Today?"

The federal government will spend more than $1 billion this year on nutrition education — fresh carrot and celery snacks, videos of dancing fruit, hundreds of hours of lively lessons about how great you will feel if you eat well.

But an Associated Press review of scientific studies examining 57 such programs found mostly failure. Just four showed any real success in changing the way kids eat — or any promise as weapons against the growing epidemic of childhood obesity.

"Any person looking at the published literature about these programs would have to conclude that they are generally not working," said Dr. Tom Baranowski, a pediatrics professor at Houston's Baylor College of Medicine who studies behavioral nutrition.

- Last year a major federal pilot program offering free fruits and vegetables to school children showed fifth graders became less willing to eat them than they had been at the start. Apparently they didn't like the taste.

His philosophy is simple: “no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations.”

In the near future, we will able to do just about anything by just thinking about it.

In Mississippi, Attorney General Jim Hood sued to force State Farm Insurance Cos. to pay claims for damage it explicitly had excluded in its policies. When State Farm tried to pull out of Mississippi, he sued again, seeking to compel the insurer to continue selling insurance in a market it no longer wanted to serve.

When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.

Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.

In this last sentence the Washington Post appears to admit what we've said here all along. Monopolies are a myth, defined only by the subjective and entirely political heavy hand of government. A corporation cannot maintain a monopoly indefinitely unless it is unbelievably efficient. Like a mafia, government goes after companies only if they don't 'cough up' and their success makes them targets for both the state and the trial bar.

Wikipedia.org Some people put together a nice little Wiki here... :) It's the best I've seen of where Ron Paul stands on the issues.

This monologue is in reaction to Senator Lott saying, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”, in response to conservative protests over the recent immigration bill, protests which I, incidentally, happen to think are misdirected. Readers may recall past stories, grouped together under 'media freedom', detailing how various leftist politicians threaten free speech in one way or another. Now it appears we have a Republican who may be doing the same thing! Rush offers a nice rebuttal:

Senator Lott is out there saying, "The problem with this is talk radio, and it's a problem that's going to have be dealt with." Now, what does that mean? When I hear a United States senator say that what I do for a living is a "problem" that the government has to "deal with," you can interpret it any number of ways. He's either saying, "Well, we're going to have to come up with our own ways to overcome them," or, "We're going to just have to wipe them out." What does it mean? The real question is: How are we going to deal with Trent Lott? What are we going to do about him?
What is talk radio? Talk radio is the greatest democratic forum in the country today. It is truly diverse. There are more ideas, there's more back and forth, there's more so-called diversity. There are all kinds of great things to say about it. Talk radio is the American voter. I bet most of the people who listen to talk radio are voters. That's what bothers Trent Lott.

So you got a Republican talking about talk radio the way liberals talk about talk radio, which tells you (it tells me) what the real objective of most elected officials in Washington is anyway. It's to perpetuate themselves and their jobs and to spend money and maybe not -- well, yes. It would be in that order. The reason talk radio is "running the country" is because the people who are voters in this country are listening and involved and are passionate. Talk radio may be informing you, but it's not making you a robot, and you're taking action on your own, and these blowhards in Washington are hearing from you, the American people, and that's what bothers them -- and we are being blamed for you being informed, and that should tell you something.

Lol, the best is when he talks about what programs he'd abolish and talks about the governments' 'war' on X, Y, and Z. Apparently UNICF abolition isn't a top priority, hmmmm.. lol.

Politicians are agitating for a big tax hike on the private equity industry, but the motive for this talk may involve more than just a desire to have more money to spend. Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal explains that politicians threaten an industry in order to extract campaign contributions. The column suggests this is what spurred the attack on the so-called junk-bond industry in the 1980s. Another good example would be the assaults on Microsoft and Intel. This does not mean politicians are like mobsters. Mobsters, after all, don’t add insult to injury by trying to rationalize their protection rackets as being for the public good.

Check out these two maps of the United States. Sometimes we forget how much power we have. Power due to our relative freedom and liberty.

Bob Teixeira decided it was time to take a stand against U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

So last fall the Charlotte musician and guitar instructor spent $1,200 to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He bought soybean oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30 percent more than diesel would cost.

His reward, from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels: a $1,000 fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes. He has been told to expect another $1,000 fine from the federal government.

To legally use veggie oil, state officials told him, he would have to first post a $2,500 bond. <.>
Teixeira's story began near Lowe's Motor Speedway on May 14. As recreational vehicles streamed in for race week, revenue investigators were checking fuel tanks of diesel RVs for illegal fuel. The investigators spotted Teixeira's passing bumper sticker: "Powered by 100% vegetable oil."

This is similar to the story posted a few weeks ago. Speaking of which, some interesting developments have occurred in that story:

Senate Bill 267 removes the requirements of licensing and posting bond for private users of vegetable oil. The measure was introduced by state Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville. The Senate passed it 58-0.

I wonder if someone could sell vegetable oil to another person. I'll bet this is a very narrow bill, which doesn't address the underlying problem of government regulation and interference in the gasoline and oil market.

During the hearing, Wetzel provoked laughter from the representatives on the Least Cost Power Procurement Committee, as he told of his interaction with the tax agency.

A bunch of jokers these state senators... Laughing at what their own policies do to the citizens of their state.

When Gov. Schwarzenegger took office in 2003, recalled Gov. Gray Davis was spending $78.3 billion from the state's general fund. The May 2007 revision "restrains" spending to just less than $103.8 billion, an increase of 32.6 percent. That's an annual average growth rate of 8.1 percent, compared to an annual growth rate of 7.1 percent under Davis and 4.8 percent under former Gov. Pete Wilson.

And to think the Governator says he doesn't have much in common, ideologically, with President Bush... They're nearly twins! Well, I guess he's right in a sense. Bush has only increased Federal Spending 25.3% since he took office, so I guess Bush is a bit more 'Conservative'.

The road, a stretch of pavement near Fort Myers, Fla., that touches five golf clubs on its way to the Gulf of Mexico, is the target of a $10 million earmark that appeared mysteriously in a 2006 transportation bill written by Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska. <.> His campaign records show that he received more than $40,000 in contributions on one day around that time, mostly from southwestern Florida developers and builders.

Mr. Young, who last year steered more than $200 million to a so-called bridge to nowhere reaching 80 people on Gravina Island, Alaska, has no constituents in Florida.

The Republican congressman whose district does include Coconut Road says he did not seek the money. County authorities have twice voted not to use it, until Mr. Young and the district congressman wrote letters warning that a refusal could jeopardize future federal money for the county.
Some more quotes from Congressmen Young:

"I'd like to be a little oinker, myself," Mr. Young told a Republican lunch crowd here, taking mock offense at the suggestion that Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, directs more pork to their state than he does. "If he's the chief porker, I'm upset." <.>

He said he would support an increase in the federal tax on gasoline — a "user fee," he called it — to pay for even more projects than were included in the newly passed bill. <.>

"It's not a good way to legislate, although I got a lot of stuff in it," Mr. Young told The Anchorage Daily News in December. "I mean I stuffed it like a turkey."

Meet Congressmen, I mean Common Criminal, Don Young, and he's not even a polite felon at that:

When he was approached near the House floor by a reporter, Mr. Young responded with an obscene gesture.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."

What a great video; great technology presenting the perfect picture of optimism. Indeed, the world is a wonderful place to live and getting better everyday. Millions of people are being lifted out of poverty, society is evolving for the better, materially and morally, and government is getting smaller. This view of optimism is not a product of ignorant naivety or wishful thinking, it really is the objective truth of how the world is.

In 1980, economist |Julian Simon| and biologist Paul Ehrlich decided to put their money where their predictions were. Ehrlich had been predicting massive shortages in various natural resources for decades, while Simon claimed natural resources were infinite.

Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win. The loser would mail the winner a check for the change in price.

By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07.

An interesting article, claiming HIV/AIDS numbers in Africa have been exaggerated and inflated. Many estimates of HIV/AIDS numbers come from UN and WHO 'computer models'.

Mr Bennell regrets that "there is virtually no population-based survey data in most of the high-prevalence countries, including Botswana, Ethiopia, Malawi, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland."

Numerous other statistics contained in the article are used as evidence against the statistics coming out of Africa. Some people have sounded alarm bells for years:

Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical. <.> Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

This is part of a greater pattern. Any seemingly looming catastrophe, any fearful event, gives government legitimacy, incentives politicians and media figures, 'morally' and professionally, to 'make a difference' and moves the public to allow their tax dollars to be confiscated and their freedoms further limited. These actions stem not of conspiracy, but human nature and misplaced attachment as to what constitutes the 'greater good', including translocation of ends over means. In reality their efforts do more harm then good; chasing cracks with sledgehammers only breaks open gushing holes in the dam.

President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to authorize an additional $30 billion to fight AIDS in Africa over five years, doubling the current U.S. commitment.

America lets radio and TV broadcasters use public airwaves worth more than half a trillion dollars for free. In return, we require that broadcasters serve the public interest: devoting at least some airtime for worthy programs that inform voters, support local arts and culture and educate our children — in other words, that aspire to something beyond just minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.

"The founder of an anti-gang organization known as No Guns, once funded ($1.5 million, with $200,000 executive salary!) by the city of Los Angeles, was arrested Thursday and charged with selling firearms to federal undercover officers. <.> Marroquin claimed to have helped more than 60 gang members find jobs in labor unions."

Signaling deep discontent and a possible spreading revolt among the city's public school teachers, faculty at two more Los Angeles high schools met this week with a leading charter school operator to discuss alliances aimed at breaking away from the school district.

This is truly an amazing phenomena, especially as it attacks a central plank of the teacher's Unions arguments against charter schools: that private companies provide sub par working conditions and benefits. Even some proponents of charter schools mistakenly acquiesce the benefit of unions to teachers, and instead trumpet the gains made by students, which if one considers, is really the whole point of education anyway... However, as stated in 'A Charter School Tale', the basic human instincts of justice, fairness, and happiness stemming from quality, competence, and hard work, are both emotionally and financially beneficial.

The educators also responded positively to Barr's claims that the group's small central staff allows more than 90% of state funds to go directly to instruction and higher teacher salaries. Significantly less money reaches district classrooms, largely because of the L.A. school district's sizable bureaucracy. <.>

District officials have been reluctant to grant teachers and principals the freedom to run the schools and unable to provide the support needed to carry out the transformation smoothly. <.>

For Barr, the interest comes from two very different schools. Taft is a racially diverse school with middle-of-the-road test scores and a largely veteran, stable faculty. Santee, by contrast, serves poor minority students in one of the city's most gang-infested neighborhoods. Student performance is some of the lowest in the district, and at the end of the campus' first year, roughly 40% of its teachers left — several of them taking jobs at Green Dot schools.

The United Auto Workers has launched a big new push to organize the plant, trying to capitalize on fears of lower pay, outsourcing of jobs and on Toyota's treatment of injured workers. <.>

At a new factory being built in Mississippi, Toyota plans to pay workers about $20 an hour in a region where many people earn $12 to $13 an hour.

If teachers are better off without public school unions, maybe autoworkers are too, and it just might save their jobs in the long run...

In 1937, New York City, full of liberalism's itch to regulate everything, knew, just knew, how many taxicab permits there should be. For 70 years the number (about 12,000) has not been significantly changed, so rising prices have been powerless to create new suppliers of taxi services. Under this government-created scarcity, a permit ("medallion") now costs about $500,000. Most people wealthy enough to buy medallions do not drive cabs, any more than plantation owners picked cotton. They lease their medallions at exorbitant rates to people like Paucar who drive, often for less than $15 an hour, for long days.

This article is illustrative because, unlike medicine, education, social work, and all the various other special interest government granted licensing monopolies/rackets, this one doesn't even make a pretense of having a 'public interest' or 'public safety' as a cover for its existence. It is purely political, derived from expansive government, placing a certain class of people above others, little more than a spin-off from the traditional European aristocracies.

This also explains the various shortages and exhorbient prices seen in the medical field. But it is important to note the specialists who restrict their own numbers most often do not do so consciously, it is not a conspiracy, but rather a neglectful and subconscious result of marred feedback loops.

However, a shortage of taxis is not as harmful as a shortage of doctors, sort of paradoxic considering our friends on the left (and right) deem medicine 'too important' to be left to market forces:

The Texas-based consulting ﬁrm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates surveyed 1,062 physician specialists’ ofﬁces in 15 major cities and found Boston patients wait longest for appointments. The study, released this week, found that new patients in Boston wait an average 37 days to see a cardiologist, 45 days to see an obstetrician-gynecologist, and 50 days to see a dermatologist — the longest waits of the 15 cities. Patients schedule appointments with an orthopedic surgeon in Boston 24 days in advance on average, the second longest delay after Los Angeles, where patients wait 43 days.

More than $30 million in federal gas tax funding is being spent setting up roadblocks to ticket motorists who neglect or choose not to wear a seatbelt.

More than $30 million in federal gas tax dollars will be spent between now and June 3 to encourage local and state police to set up ticketing roadblocks under a program called "Click it or Ticket."

Given all the apparent angst over high gas prices, as well as the fact that somewhere around 5 times as much 'tax' is taken out of the price of gasoline as is 'profit', we need to wonder why there is no outcry over this program.

But, more disturbingly than this, more and more Federal money is being shuttled to states for all kinds of various programs. States are encouraged to socialize their healthcare; for example Massachusetts received millions in matching federal funds. This Cato Institute article documents more examples.

The ticketing program's kick-off met with a rough start when reporters filmed President George W. Bush driving his truck on his private property in Texas without a seatbelt.

What does it reflect on the times when 2/3rds of the Congress believes price gouging exists? High prices are the best incentive to encourage more of a product to enter the market. 1970s style gas shortages may be around the corner if we keep heading down this path.

Opposing the measure, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. warned that every link in the chain of distribution -- right down to the local gas station owner -- would be in what it called a Catch-22 of having to set a price for its gasoline and hope that no one deemed it "excessively unconscionable."

But, of course, none of this matters as long as politicians are seen doing 'something'.

"I was at a funeral Saturday, and when the monsignor greeted me, he said, 'My God, Bart, you have to do something about these gas prices!' " said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chief sponsor of the anti-gouging bill.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) told her colleagues: "I can't go home, and I imagine none of you can, without saying we tried to do something."

With a bit of creative context, one can almost hear the National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. echoing Fredrick Douglas:

"I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us! Do nothing with us!"

First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year. <.>

In England, the government has made the movie part of the public curriculum. In Spain, the government is buying copies of the movie for all of its schools. In Australia, private donors are buying copies for schools.

The point is not whether this movie or this opinion is accurate or not, although from what I've read there is much in it which is very inaccurate, but whether entire populations should be 'educated' en mass shrouded in such conformity. Especially over the opposition of parents.

Another example:
Students at Roger Williams University in Briston, Rhode Island, were forced to watch Al Gore’s global warming schlockumentary if they wished to graduate.

This article further describes Ron Paul's passionate and internet savvy supporters and the growing momentum of his campaign.

The past presidential debate was quite interesting, highlighted by an exchange between Paul and Guliani over the war in Iraq. I'd have to say, Rep Paul made some good points, even if he was somewhat inarticulate in focus. He came in second place via a text message vote count of over 40,000.

A while back I read ‘The Illusion of Victory', recommended by Pat Buchannon, whom I not a fan of by the way, but it was still interesting as it purports that we are all worse off for going into World War I and that we had no business going over there. I wasn’t a die hard convert after reading it, although I respected the mans opinion, but parts of it are increasingly making retroactive sense.

Ask his neighbors and they'll tell you Roger Bean was the Robin Hood of dentures.
He did fittings and made false teeth for older people who couldn't afford a dentist, and didn't charge them, accepting only donations.

    But ask sheriff's deputies who arrested Bean on Tuesday, and they'll tell you he was practicing dentistry without a state license, which is a felony. He did have a certificate from Texas for denturistry, though it is unclear whether it was authentic. But even that doesn't matter, because the practice does not exist in Florida, Detective Don Zumpano said.
    Denturistry was created to eliminate the dentist -- and a significant amount of the price -- from the denture business, investigators said. In Florida, denture work must be done by a dentist.
    Bean charged about $200 for a full set of dentures, which usually cost upwards of $2,000, investigators said.

Ron St. Mary, 73, head of the neighborhood crime watch, said in his eyes, Bean was not a criminal. "He's helping the old people who don't have a few dollars," he said. "I think the world of him."

And so the government racket and sanctioned inefficient monopolies continues... In the name of 'patient safety' professional organizations lobby government and raise the price of healthcare through the roof. Who is hurt most? The poorest of the poor...

Zimbabwe won approval last night to head a key United Nations body charged with promoting economic progress and environmental protection despite protests from the U.S., European nations and human rights organizations. <.>

Zimbabwe has the world's highest inflation rate at over 2,200 percent. Unemployment is estimated at between 80 and 90 percent, and severe food shortages are common in a country once considered southern Africa's breadbasket.

Besides North Korea, Zimbabwe is the closest thing there is to true communism in the world today. It has one of the biggest governments in the world, and the worst property rights, as demonstrated by the starvation occurring there. Ironic, isn't it, the country which has demonstrated the most economic ignorance and brought the most misery to its people should head a commission ostensibly promoting the concept of 'economic development'. But, then again, since government more often than not accomplishes the opposite of its intentions, why should we expect better from a group of governments? In fact, we can rest assured the most incomprehensible, asinine, and counterproductive actions and proposals will emerge from a body consisting of the sums of the worlds' governments.

Libya, under fire for years from human rights activists, was overwhelmingly elected Monday to chair the top United Nations rights body.

On 5/10/06, coincidentally almost exactly a year ago, I wrote a post describing some of the other unsavory members of the 'Human Rights' commission:

Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, identified by New York-based Human Rights Watch as unworthy of membership on the new UN body, were among those winning seats.

Bear in mind your tax dollars are going to support these and countless other UN shenanigans.

Cannabis smokers are unwittingly funding Islamist extremists linked to terror attacks in Spain, Morocco and Algeria, according to a joint investigation by the Spanish and French secret services. The finding will be seized on both by campaigners for a harsher clampdown on cannabis and by those who argue that legalisation is the only way to end a petty dealing trend that is dragging growing numbers of teenagers into crime. The investigation by the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia and the Renseignements Generaux was launched after Spanish police found that the Islamists behind the March 2004 bombings in Madrid bought their explosives from former miners in return for blocks of hashish.

"...billions of dollars from the sale of opium and its derivative heroin are bankrolling criminal and terrorist organizations."

Government, whose core reason for existence include protecting the property (lives) and liberty of its citizens fails on both counts with the 'war on drugs'.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.

That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.

So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn -- a libertarian nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution's original intent -- poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?

Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

After Thursday night's debate, the comment sections of several major news organizations -- including ABC's -- were inundated with pro-Paul messages.

I think we can safely discount any tomfoolery here. Ron Paul doesn't have the support of any national party, deep pocketed special interest group, or any significant reserves of cash or contributions himself. It appears his support truly stems from a relatively small group of uncoordinated liberty loving persons acting individually. It has always been my cautious observation that libertarian leaning folks tend to be more active, passionate, and politically active than your average Liberal or Conservative. If true, there are many interesting theories that can be constructed as to why this might be so.

Mr. Williams' own '08 favorite is Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican and a 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, who last month announced the formation of an exploratory committee.

"I personally think that if we chose the president of the United States at random, we'd get a better president than any president since Ronald Reagan," said Mr. Williams.

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

In a major report that will embarrass the government, the British Medical Association will say fertility treatment, plastic surgery and operations for varicose veins and minor childhood ailments, such as glue ear, are among a long list of procedures in jeopardy. <.>

Senior BMA sources say their report recognises the reality that despite record investment in the NHS, 'postcode lotteries' are rife.

'Rationing of health care in one form or another has always existed but has not been discussed.'

All junior doctors have had to reapply for jobs as part of the system to modernise job applications. But a row broke out this week after hundreds were denied interviews despite being overqualified.

This system appears to be more run like a union than a market based system, although perhaps this is not surprising since the government controls healthcare. In unions seniority generally rules and is directly related to paycheck, regardless of skill or competence.

This is despite record wait lists and doctor shortages in Britain. Maybe some of these docs will get fed up with this system and come to the US?

Modernisingmedicalcareers.com, a second website, has polled 1,200 doctors. Early findings indicate 71.5% have considered leaving the NHS as a result of the proposed changes.

"I don't believe in it, I don't like it, I think it is Satanic," Jonathan Hansen said in a telephone interview, adding that to date he has paid his Social Security taxes. "I belong to a religion that will take care of me. I don't need the Social Security system and I don't want it."

"It violates my religious beliefs and it violates the teachings of my church as I interpret them."

Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari has been offering senior citizens a 2 cent per gallon price break and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cents less per gallon. But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.

Regardless of who was right or wrong, it is simply the amount which is staggering. In all areas of law, it is not that persons have not been wronged or deserve compensation, but the sheer payouts given and sought serve as a blight on society.

Was a crime committed? Or was an entrepreneur sacked for exposing inefficiencies in the present system.

We just returned from DO Day on the Hill, an annual convention of Osteopathic students and physicians who converge on Washington DC to lobby our representatives and become politically involved in the AOA (American Osteopathic Association), which represents the Osteopathic profession. This is my second year attending this great event, my post from last year can be found here.

The event began the night before with speeches by AOA lobbyists, including head lobbyist Shawn Martin, and members of the AOA, including the president elect Dr. Ajulini. We also heard a fun speech by NV congresswoman Shelly Berkely (D), who, incidentally, is married to an adjunct professor at our school, Dr. Lehrner a nephrologist, who, if I'm not mistaken, is a libertarian of sorts. He was the voice of reason at an organ transplant conference I attended at UNLV where he argued for a market based, contract based approach to solve the organ donor shortage. In other words, he was the only participant who started with the, in my opinion self evident, premise that we own our own bodies.

However, I must admit, I was somewhat torn and conflicted during our day of lobbying. The AOA is quite professional in their approach to lobbying, recommending only to pick a topic/bill(s) you are passionate about and presenting students a variety of choices. For example, last year I was happy to stick to discussing malpractice reform (here is a great interview by Shawn Martin on the subject).

But this year I cannot honestly say I was in great favor of any of the legislation we were supposed to lobby for, as every law expanded the power, spending, and reach of the Federal Government. In my view, government is the problem, not the solution to issues in healthcare.

The first bill was to raise/restore physician payments for Medicare. My feelings regarding the expansive, convoluted, and increasingly insolvent Medicare program is summed up in this previously posted article.

The second legislative priority was to expand SCHIP, a federal children's health program. One might wonder why there is even a need for this, since Medicaid, another questionable massive Federal program, already covers poor children. Well, it turns out there were folks 'falling through the cracks', a seemingly never ending phenomena when it comes to expanding or creating government programs. In fact, in New York a family of four with an income of up to $82,600 is considered 'falling through the cracks'. Another occurrence, also not of great surprise, was the tendency of states to expand of eligibilities to expand coverage to pregnant women and adults, and turn the program into an entitlement rather than a grant to the states.

Yet, it appears some form of this will pass as how can a politician be against anything that is 'for the children'? But more importantly, how will the outcomes of these children's health programs be any different from the outcomes of other welfare programs? Elimination, well reductions, in programs designed to help populations appeared to fulfill the very goals of the programs! In other words do anti-poverty programs increase poverty? Although initially counterintuitive, investigations appear to validate this conclusion. The reasons are multifaceted, but the negative reinforcement applied when benefits are taken away may increasingly perpetuate poverty cycles and discourage attempts to escape it.

The last bill (S. 588, H.R. 1093) was a graduate medical education bill, designed to increase the number of residencies for physicians in states that have caps on federally funded slots and shortages of residencies. Nevada is one such state. I was most familiar with this subject, having just completed, Medical Education in Nevada, a Tale of Two Medical Schools, which deals in large part with the residency situation in Nevada. Nonetheless, despite attractive aspects of this bill, it was still impossible to evade the conclusion that the GME system is rotten at its core, that government control over residencies and graduate medical education accomplishes far more harm than good, and is in fact responsible for the current shortages, that government control harms the quality of GME, and that, like Medicare and Medicaid, solutions which seem initially attractive to physicians conclude in the biting of the hand which feeds them. Even if such a program were a benefit to physicians and the medical community, it would still be difficult to justify the importance of the medical profession over others and the confiscation of other peoples' property to support such measures.

We were able to meet briefly with our NV senators, Reid and Ensign, and Congressman Porter, but more importantly, were also able to spend significant time with members of their staff, all of whom were quite wonderful. We met with Allana Porter (Porter's health policy aide), Katherine Oh (Reid's health policy aide), and Michelle Spence (Ensign's health policy aide). Katherine recognized us from our discussions last year, and was more than welcoming, knowledgeable, and interested in hearing from us. Porter's office and Reid's office supported the general concepts behind all three of our bills.

However, in my personal opinion, the highlight of the trip was our interactions with the staff of Senator Ensign. Pamela Thiessen, Legislative Director for Senator Ensign, was a real breath of fresh air as we discussed the values of a free market health care system and the damage done by government interference. But our meeting with Michelle was really a pleasure. It is, perhaps, the tendency of politicians and their staff to say what visiting folks want to hear; certainly the easy road to reelection. Yet, Michelle asked hard questions of our group; in fact, her objections mirrored my own on all three bills. Additionally, she was correct in her inference that practice conditions in any given state are far more important than any shortages, perceived or otherwise, in state residency spots in attracting physicians. Nationally, less than 50% of graduating residents stay in the states they trained in. In Pennsylvania the number was less than 8% in 2004!

In fact, the same argument holds true for eliminating state funding to state medical schools:

For an extreme example, in Haiti it was documented that at one point out of 264 medical doctors who graduated from a Haitian medical school all but three left the country, mostly for the United States. (98), (99)

And so the discussions went. However, in all this I attempted to sit in relative silence, out of courtesy to my fellow students and our hosts at the AOA. Luckily, there did arise some good opportunity to profess some strong opinions against the FDA, hopefully without overdosing, so to speak, on relish. :)

In other news we attended SOMA meetings (Student Osteopathic Medical Association representing nearly all the +13,000* Osteopathic Medical Students), accomplishing a great deal and were exposed to some very interesting speakers. Additionally, I had the honor of being selected for a National Board position, 'National Director of Political Affairs'. This will be very exciting and is also a great responsibility.

Thus, by the necessity of time constraints, this site, or at least my contributing part, will increasingly be directed towards health policy. Of course, before I scare anyone too much :), it goes without saying this position is a nonpartisan position and my duties will mostly consist of increasing medical student participation and understanding of the political process, working to increase cooperation with OPAC and the AOA, and additional projects. Although, of course, I am always more than happy to share any opinions. :)

Continuing on our 3/3/07 post on this subject, it appears our fears were realized and the proposed merger is now not likely, although at least John Aschcroft and his buds at the NAB got paid. This WP article accurately describes the reasons and reality of this coming rejection:

"The merger faces a very tough road at the FCC, where the public interest test applied by the commission is inherently subjective," Moffett said. "In Washington, 'subjective' is codeword for 'political.' " <.>

The decline of the companies' stock, analysts say, has less to do with the merits of the merger than with its prospects. They cited the political climate in Washington, where lawmakers have grilled Sirius chief executive Mel Karmazin about antitrust concerns during four hearings on Capitol Hill, as the driving force behind Wall Street's pessimism.

In a perfect world, shouldn't it be the opposite? The executives of these private companies and freedom loving citizens would instead grill the politicians?

An interesting story. In a sort of social experiment the 'greatest' violinist in the world plays some of the 'greatest' classical and difficult songs ever written on a $3 million dollar violin, in jeans and a baseball cap in DC subway rush hour. The man is ignored. But it is because we Americans are 'uncultured' as a people, as this article appears to purport, or is it because the emperor has no clothes?

In past posts, we've discussed the importance of constantly bettering oneself, thus achieving happiness, through careful introspection and monitoring of the mind, facilitation of positive habits, and meditation.

Along with this, there are also a number of 'exercises', if you will, that in both theory and practice can aid us in moving in positive directions. These practices are widespread across religious and eclectic spiritual practices, even if there is tendency in common culture to portray such practices negatively, or at very least, somewhat eccentric.

The common underlying theme is restricting the body of a want or, more commonly, a need, with deliberate and spiritual intention. For some examples, there are breathing exercises in Yoga where one holds the breath until near unconsciousness, fasting, abstinence, or other methods employed by various religious traditions, such as the Catholic Lent and Good Friday or the Muslim month of Ramadan.

The goal is that by performing such acts, we gain a deeper understanding of our mind, body, and consciousness, and more control over our thoughts, thus increasing our happiness. During a fast, one cannot help but constantly think of food. Of course, this is rather obvious and predictable; when one abstains from eating, hunger is experienced! Yet, when fasting we do not give into this hunger. We allow our mind to control our body, for once. But actions are of little importance and consequence, it is really our thoughts we are after, for it is possible to have a fair level of control over our actions, but remain in relative cognitive misery.

However, the focus should not be on eliminating our hunger pangs, or any other thoughts of tasty foods and fasting, but rather on a detached, peaceful, and happy observation of life itself and of these arising thoughts. There is a very important difference between 'being hungry' and 'observing that one is hungry'. The latter thought distances one from the part of the self that thinks "I, I, I, me, me, me" and instead of being a reactive robot in an environment, like an instinctive mindlessly experiencing animal, you operate at a higher level, like a thinking choosing human being. You are truly self aware and alive!

If we can achieve even incremental advances on such a powerful biologic thought churning force as hunger, then might we not in turn find it easier to stay reaction to the many subtle negative emotions and attachments constantly arising in our everyday experiences?

There exists common misconceptions that the purpose of denying the body is to suffer; some even seek to emulate the perceived 'suffering' of Christ, Buddha, and/or other spiritual or religious figures. But if these folks were the great saints or spiritual leaders their followers claim, then 'suffer' is certainly the one thing they did little of. Men and women of great spiritual caliber exert overwhelming joy and happiness, exhibit tremendous freedom of will, and exude great discernment and understanding. They soar on waves of joy, free from attachment to the self and body, and experience negligible negative emotions, thoughts, and judgments.

These positive feelings and thoughts are to be welcomed and encouraged during a fast. When the mind strays, gently bring it back. If said thoughts can be generated during a time of great physical upheaval, against these turbulent underlying biological pulsations, then how much easier will these positive states be to obtain in our normal mindsets?

So, the point of a fast is joy, not suffering. We do not withhold the breath to feel suffocation, but to feel lightness, and I don't mean headedness :), even over the protestations of the body.

Yet, isn't it a bit curious, this need to undergo these exercises in order to achieve positive advancement towards these goals? Can we not undertake these mental evaluations and exercises every day? When we are contentedly full, why do we reach for that extra bite? Why do we live to eat, live to breath, live to procreate etc.., instead of the other way around?

Certainly there exists the danger of becoming caught up and fanatical with spiritual exercises, becoming attached to outside perceptions about ones actions or image, excessive pride in ones lifestyle or advancements, to the point that one forgets the root reason for it all. These restrictions we undertake are reflective only of our weakness and difficulty maintaining sufficient regular motivation. The need to 'fast', for instance, is an admission one is not making spiritual headway elsewhere. This humility, hopefully reinforced by the pounding resurgent cravings experienced in restrictive states, is a necessary requirement for facilitating the continuation of the more important constant self monitoring, reflection, and improvements, and should continue even after the body has been denied its wont.

Parents who claim that an award-winning film on climate change is inaccurate and politically motivated are threatening a legal challenge over the Government's decision to send it to every secondary school.

The film by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, won an Oscar for the best documentary this year and Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, says he wants teachers to use it to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming.

But a group of parents in the New Forest say the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002. Derek Tipp, their spokesman, has urged Mr Johnson to stop the film being sent out.

In my opinion, Liberalism is the ideology of default, what most school children emerge with from public school system. This story provides some reason why this occurs.

This is an interesting story regardless, but it also includes an excerpt illustrative of how our legal system functions:

    By the time Whittaker won the lottery, he said, he was doing $16 million to $17 million worth of work. He enjoyed years of success with few complaints, but less than a year after winning the lottery things began to change.
    Rob Dunlap, one of Whittaker's many attorneys, said Whittaker has spent at least $3 million dollars fending off lawsuits.
    "I've had over 400 legal claims made on me or one of my companies since I've won the lottery, " said Whittaker.
    When asked why that might happen, Whittaker said it's because "everybody wants something for nothing."

The Arizona Board of Appraisal issued two cease-and-desist letters to the company that operates the popular real estate Web site Zillow, saying it needs an appraiser license to offer its "zestimates" in Arizona.

The site has been criticized by real estate professionals and others concerned about its accuracy.

Government is again being used by professionals groups to take away rights from citizens.

She was Miss America 1944 and later a candidate for Cincinnati City Council and worked to save Over-the-Rhine's historic buildings. She performed on Broadway and in movies.

For some time, thieves had been breaking into the building to steal the machines to sell for scrap. She hadn't been able to catch anyone in the act until last week.

When she asked a man what he was doing, he replied "scrapping," and said he would leave.

"I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walking stick as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

Eventually, three people were arrested - one at the scene and two others walking on a nearby road.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it. If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

"They've been stealing from me for years. Those good-for-nothing slobs," she said.

"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another."

Yesterday, Cho Seung-Hui, a lone, deranged killer, snuffed out the lives of over thirty innocent victims at Virginia Tech. His was the most deadly rampage of its kind in US history. The cold, calculated way in which this monster executed his young victims sent profound pain and shock into the hearts of all who heard.

On February 12, another shooter had stormed into a shopping center in Salt Lake City, Utah with the same intent as Mr. Cho. Sulejman Talović wanted to kill a lot of people. He blasted indiscriminately with a 12-gauge shotgun, killing and injuring innocent victims, even before he entered the shopping center.

But the two incidents went very differently, and the number of victims was much greater in Virginia than it was in Utah. The gunmen were no less murderous, and their victims no less innocent. Yet, Mr. Talović killed five people and injured four, compared to Mr. Cho's rampage, which took over thirty lives and left nearly that many injured. What made the difference?

When legislation was propose in Virginia to permit legal handgun carry on college campuses, Virginia Tech spokesman, Larry Hincker, cheered its defeat. Of that event, he said, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." [1]

The bitter irony of that statement should haunt the minds of every person who opposed the bill.

The reason Sulejman Talović did not kill thirty people in Salt Lake City was not because he didn't try. It's not because he didn't want to. It's because there was a man in that shopping center with a concealed weapon. It's because there was someone there to stop him.

In this case, the one who was there to stop the killer happened to be an off-duty police officer. But it could just as easily been another legally-carrying citizen. Hundreds of potential tragedies are averted, either completely or partially, every year by law abiding citizens who use their guns legally to defend themselves or another.

There's nothing magic about a police officer. Police officers are watching for bad guys pretty much full-time, but they are not and cannot be everywhere at all times. Most of the time, they arrive after tragedy has struck. Someone needs to defend the innocent before they're shot and bleeding to death on the floor.

Larry Hincker, and those who sympathize with his way of thinking, are happy to make certain there is no-one to stop a rampaging killer. They celebrate the disarming of those who desperately want to, need to, defend themselves.

I'm sure that most opponents of firearms do so out of a desire for peace, and a hatred of violence. They don't want any more shootings. But opposition to guns is not the way to stop shootings.

Guns are here to stay. Banning them hasn't made them vanish from the face of the earth. Guns are banned in Great Britain, yet criminals are still shooting their victims there. And, when they can't get hold of a gun, British killers use knives or swords instead.

Since restrictive gun laws don't make them disappear, just what do such laws do? They make those who respect the law, those who actually obey the law, less able to defend themselves. They make legally obtaining a firearm more difficult and more expensive, if it's legal to do so at all.

Imagine for a moment what the Virginia Tech incident might have been like if the legal gun bill would have passed. Maybe someone in the path of this psychopath would have been able to stop him. Maybe he would have decided against the rampage in the first place, knowing that someone along the way might just shoot him in self-defense.

Maybe, if some of these innocent victims weren't deprived of their God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of their very lives... Just maybe... there would be twenty or twenty-five or thirty more scared, but very alive, students today.

Advocates of gun ownership don't want to kill people. They want to be able to stop those who do.

    I ran across this recently and it is quite a powerful tribute to Libertarianism in the Old Testament. This story starts with Samuel, a godly man, as King, but he grows old and his sons begin to run the country and are corrupt. The people then come to him and demand a King to rule over them:

Warning concerning a King

      10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. 17 “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
      19 Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the LORD’S hearing. 22 The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to their voice and appoint them a king.”

The story continues with Saul being appointed King, yet eventually he succumbs to the lust of power and politics, issuing tyrannical orders and warmongering. Eventually he confesses:

“I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice. 25 “

I think these excerpts are interesting because it accurately, in my opinion, describes the corruption of power and danger of centralized expansive government. Both Samuel and Saul are 'good people', yet they both are not able to effectively govern because by definition no human is capable of governing another effectively. The powers are too vast, the responsibilities too great, and the authorities too pervasive to prevent the corruption of power and stem clouded emotional judgment from seeping into even the best of people. Interestingly, the Lord appears to place much onus on the people for demanding someone rule over them. In effect, they bring upon their own suffering by not accepting the Lord Himself as their King, by believing another man is capable of running their lives, by not accepting personal responsibility for themselves and their communities, and by placing faith in a runaway democracy.

This belief that there are hero men that we should surrender and submit to, who can run our lives better than we can, who can spend our own money better than us, is a pervasive one, touched upon in the article posted on President's Day which concluded:

American liberty will never be reestablished so long as elites and masses alike look to the president to perform supernatural feats and therefore tolerate his virtually unlimited exercise of power. Until we can restore limited, constitutional government in this country, God save us from great presidents

Of course, the bible is subject to interpretation and there are other verses used respectively by various ideologies. While it is not necessary to ground oneself in the bible to arrive at a conclusion of liberty, it is still interesting such concepts existed thousands of years ago.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

Some states regulate mini-clinics by requiring physician ownership. In Indiana, MinuteClinic acts as a kind of franchisor, selling outlets to local doctors.

The above is posted as background. Diligent readers may recall past posts (now grouped under Medical Lobbying) describing the attempts of doctor organizations to squash new upstart mini-clinics, which threaten their businesses by exposing inefficiencies in their present system. However, these attempts have unintended consequences, as seen in a recent email sent to all students and faculty of Touro University, a private Osteopathic medical school in Nevada:

Touro University Nevada has been developing a clinical practice facility for faculty, staff, and students. We ran into a serious obstacle in February when we discovered that non-physician owned corporations could not provide patient care in Nevada. After extensive research, we discovered that many states with similar laws had enacted legislation or regulations to enable private not-for-profit medical schools to create clinical practices. At first we thought that we would have to wait until 2009 for the next legislative session to introduce enabling legislation. However, Sen. Joe Heck, DO graciously offered an amendment to a bill that he had introduced earlier and included new language that would enable private-not-for-profit medical schools to deliver patient care. That bill, S.B. 412, was passed by the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee on Good Friday, thus achieving a very important milestone. It will next go to the full Senate and if passed by the Senate on to an Assembly committee, etc. We are optimistic that “our bill” will become law this legislative session.
All of us owe Sen. Heck much gratitude for his fine work and support. When you see him, please thank him personally.

Why does the state of Nevada have the power to determine who or what 'class' of people, own certain businesses?

This was done because many people in the United States immigrated from Europe in search of freedom, religious, and otherwise, and a place where all men were equal in the eyes of the law. In Europe there were different sets of laws, rules, and customs for the nobility as opposed to the 'common folk'. We need to ask today if we have merely substituted nomenclature. Instead of 'prince' we have 'doctor', instead of 'duke' we have 'lawyer', and instead of 'knight' we have 'manicurists'. Manicurist? Yea, even manicurist.

The point being that all these distinctive subcategories of 'classes' or 'people' are accorded special privileges solely on the basis of title. These privileges result in their enrichment and benefit, at the expense of the 'common folk' or 'those without fancy titles'.

As history has shown it is most often the 'common folk' whose productivity and innovation create the most prosperity and advances. Giving them the freedom to own medical clinics free of government coercion would certainly be a good start.

But government monopolies like the VA never embrace innovation in the same way the private market does. And sure enough, the VA now rations drugs. If you are a VA patient and you need a new and expensive drug, you can't get it. Writes Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute and author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health-Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer", "Only 19 percent of drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are listed on the VA formulary, and only 38 percent of drugs approved in the 1990s are listed. ...

The cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, for example, isn’t on the VA’s list, even though it’s shown remarkable success at lowering the risk of heart attack and stroke.".

In other words, the department keeps a rein on costs by withholding drugs from veterans. <.>

When government controls prices, it must eventually ration supplies. Consumers suffer. When the product is medicine, the results could be catastrophic.

A long line of Turkmens and foreign dignitaries streamed past the coffin of President Saparmurat Niyazov early Sunday, as the country prepared to bury the man who ruled with an all-encompassing personality cult.

Schoolchildren are required to read his book of musings everyday, and studying it is said to be a direct ticket to heaven. His golden statues dot the capital, and he renamed the month of January after himself, and April after his mother.

Analysts say Niyazov's intolerance of rivals and frequent purges left no obvious successors. Signs of jockeying for power emerged just hours after his death was announced.

Lt. Gen. Geldimukhammed Ashirmukhammedov, the security minister, promised in a newspaper statement to follow the policies of Niyazov, who banned opposition parties, controlled all media and jailed critics.

All this is not too surprising, certainly there exists plenty of tin horn cult like communist like leaders around the world. However, also in attendance was:

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, the senior member of the U.S. delegation...

The Federal Government of the United States and the bureaucrats at the State Department see fit to spend our tax dollars sending a delegation in some sort of support or recognition of this tyrant?

Plastic bags cost about a penny each, paper costs about a nickel and compostable bags can run as high as 10 cents each.

Paper bags, meanwhile, generate 70% more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This is because four times as much energy is required to produce paper bags and 85 times as much energy is needed to recycle them. Paper takes up nine times as much space in landfills and doesn't break down there at a substantially faster rate than plastic does.

The move to turn the clocks forward by an hour on March 11 rather than the usual early April date was mandated by the U.S. government as an energy-saving effort.

But other than forcing millions of drowsy American workers and school children into the dark, wintry weather three weeks early, the move appears to have had little impact on power usage.

“We haven’t seen any measurable impact,” said Jason Cuevas, spokesman for Southern Co., one of the nation’s largest power companies, echoing comments from several large utilities.

This last story is actually surprising because normally government efforts result in the opposite of their intentions, working against the purported purpose of the politicians drafting the measures; however, this action appears to have only a neutral impact, at least on the power savings. Of course, the net impact is still negative because of the millions of dollars and nonmeasurable inconveniences imposed.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a meatpacker based in Arkansas City, Kan., wants to test all of its cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. <.>

The Agriculture Department currently regulates the test and administers it to less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows. The department threatened Creekstone with prosecution if it tested all its animals. <.>

Larger meat companies feared that move because if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too. <.> The Agriculture Department argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

This story is not satire, and has been added to 'Required Reading' for obvious reasons. Despite their ostensible purpose, regulatory agencies do not protect consumers. They do not even help industries, as the meat industry as a whole would be better off without them. The only beneficiaries from these unconstitutional meddlings and regulatings by these agencies and the politicians propagating their power are the few largest meat companies. The oft described 'creative destruction', turnover of industry and liquidation of inefficient companies, a hallmark of freedom and capitalism, is limited.

This pattern can be found to some extent or another in nearly all government agencies. It continues because of a mix of public ignorance, misplaced public advocacy by self appointed 'do gooders', unscrupulous lobbyists and businessperson, and criminal politicians.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled that the government does not have the authority to regulate the test.

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that pergolide, sold under the name Permax and also in generic versions, is being withdrawn at the agency's request. <.>

Temple said withdrawal was requested after two recent studies, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, indicated high rates of valve leakage - up to 20 percent - in patients taking the drug.

While these side effects are certainly cause for concern, we must also consider Parkinson's can be an incredibly debilitating and even lethal disease. One of the great follies of regulatory government agencies, and even perceptions in the common culture and medical establishment is this idea that people represent an idiosyncratic 'mass', and just because a majority of people respond in a certain way or a minority have certain adverse effects, the application is universal. It may be a stretch, but can we view this through a political lens, as a sort of 'medical collectivism' or 'medical socialism'? We are all unique individuals with distinct biophysiological makeups. Our innate capacity to weigh variables and passion to strive for life certainly allow us to make more positive choices than a regulatory political agency ever could.

"Our conclusion is that pergolide has no demonstrated advantage over other therapies," Temple said. "We believe almost all patients can be converted to another drug." <.>

Temple said a few people may not be able to change to another drug and the agency is making arrangements to have pergolide available for them.

Above we see tacit admission of the described theory; certain people, albeit a minority, have found pergolide to match well with their underlying biochemistry. These folks are lucky the FDA has generously 'allowed' them to continue to purchase this medication. Future Parkinson's patients will not have this option.

The Democratic presidential candidates, the SEIU, a service oriented workers union for mostly hospital staff, the Center For American Progress, a partisan liberal group that was, incidentally, introduced by Time reporter Karen Tumulty as 'nonpartisan', and the University of Las Vegas, held a debate on health care here in Las Vegas. As a blogger located here in Las Vegas, I felt compelled by our readers to attend this event, if only to make sure the reporting emerging was 'fair and balanced'. :)

One of the first things we saw before entering was a number of protestors/demonstrators, from a wide variety of liberal groups, mostly supporting the different candidates. An exception:

Nonetheless, it was actually a pretty well put together and enjoyable event, if one considers listening to folks discuss different ways to expand the Federal government, increase spending and/or raise taxes, and limit the actions of free individuals enjoyable. Candidates all were in favor of 'universal health coverage', although they differed on how to go about achieving it. None mentioned that for all intents and purposes a form of universal coverage already presently exists.

Senator John Edward described how he would mandate health insurance for everyone and mandate 'preventative medicine', as if we don't have enough mandates driving up the price of insurance already. He said it is impossible to deliver universal health insurance and not raise taxes and candidates should be honest about it. He said he would repeal the Bush taxes cuts for the 'rich'.

Arizona Gov Bill Richardson, sporting cowboy boots, proposed lowering the Medicare benefits age from 65 to 55, increasing the wealth transfer from the poorest Americans (the young) to the richest Americans (the old). He also said a large number of the uninsured in Arizona are native Americans, whom "the Federal government is supposed to cover, but has not met its obligations". I wonder if it will meet its obligation when it is 'supposed' to cover all of us. Richardson also promoted his statewide smoking ban, saying he would attempt a similar law nationally and favored mental health mandates.

Senator Barrak Obama didn't have specifics as his "campaign was only 8 weeks old", but really laid it on thick in praise for the SEIU. Curiously, he did this while concomitantly discussing the unaffordability and rising costs of healthcare, as the unionization of hospitals and resultant inflated salaries and operational inefficiencies are directly and indirectly responsible for some of the problems he discussed. We can rest assured the SEIU works to keep nurses and healthcare workers from other countries out of the United States and engages in licensing wars to bar nonnurses from doing nursing work etc.. In my opinion, the SEIU and other unions are part of the problem, not the solution for health care in this country. Obama also discussed programs aimed at obesity and nutrition, "vegetables for kids instead of Popeyes", were his words. He "has not foreclosed raising additional revenue" for his plan and he and Clinton talked of "putting money in the front end" of their proposals.

Speaking of which, Senator Hillary Clinton came on next and surprised me as the most partisan, vitriolic, and robotic of the candidates. She started off with the premise that reforming healthcare means, "taking money away from people who are making out very well right now." Reminded me a bit of when she said, "we're going to take things away from you for the common good." When the moderator asked whom she meant to take this money away she seemed to make clear that insurance companies were her main target. Most disturbingly she said she would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny people with 'preexisting conditions', which, if one thinks about it, is the whole point of insurance. Why buy car insurance now if I can just buy it after I get in a wreck? Why not just wait till you have a disease and then shop around and find the insurance company that pays the most for it. It is, frankly, a ridiculous notion, a demonstration of incredible economic ignorance stemming from a candidate ostensibly seeking to be president of the United States. She also brought up some stories of people who had insurance but then couldn't get coverage. If insurance companies are not covering what their policy states then they are committing fraud, pure and simply. If they are just not covering what you wish they would cover then it is your fault for buying the insurance. I cannot complain to my car insurance company about not being covered for uninsured motorist collision if I didn't pay for it! Her statements mirror my earlier commentary and posted links describing how the term 'health insurance' is a misnomer; instead it has become a venue for politicians to forcibly provide socialized collective benefits to us, the masses, through private industry and the increased price of regulated insurance plans rather than the more direct central government role and increased taxes.

Overall, there were a few factual inaccuracies of consequence, most have been mentioned here on neoperspectives.com before, notably the myth of child mortality and the number of uninsured. Another interesting comment came from the moderator who noted, accurately in my opinion, that our present "employer based healthcare system was more or less based on an accident" (federal regulations and tax laws that more or less mandate employers to cover the healthcare of their workers stem from laws in the 50s and 60s). Whoops!

Nonetheless, I came away from this experience with many positive feelings. How, you might ask, can I feel positively about what was said? Because I was at a Democratic presidential primary, at a union rally, and the democratic candidates, running far left of center were, with rare exception, afraid to mention raising taxes. Democrat voters want to keep their money just like the rest of us. Governor Richardson even bragged about lowering taxes in Arizona. No candidate (well besides Kucinich who came on after I left) offered as a solution a single payer healthcare system. Sure, they all were in favor of expanding the federal system to "give ordinary people the same access to healthcare that congress has", private public partnerships, increasing various mandates, and expanding various programs, but they all respected the existence of the private market and they all respected the right of people to choose different insurance plans. Democratic voters fear centralized bureaucratic healthcare just like the rest of us. Most, if not all the candidates also wanted to give veterans the chance to choose their hospital and doctor of choice, a tacit admission or at least lip service in the direction of the recent failure of centralized federal healthcare for veterans.

So, there is much hope, a healthcare system like Britain or Canada is not in our near future. Yet. :)

Upon signing up for this event, we were allowed to submit questions. Needless to say, mine wasn't asked, but here it is:

I'm not sure whether to classify this under 'humor' or to just be thankful for the society in which we live...

Unfortunately, Wal-Mart's attempt to help the poorest of the poor, and of course, make money by doing so, has been withdrawn. One might wonder, why there should be a need to 'apply' for some sort of 'banking license'? If a friend gives me some money to hold on to and I invest a little here and there and keep tabs on it and let him or her 'withdraw' whenever they like, am I committing a crime? I bet I'm committing two! Of course, I'm only joking, I am likely violating dozens of federal laws that could earn me years in prison.

Homeowners who refuse to make their properties energy efficient will face financial penalties under drastic government plans to transform Britain into the world's first 'green' economy. <.>

Ministers yesterday promised deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions that they warned would mean everyone in the country having to 'live, work and travel differently'. <.>

Mr Blair compared the fight against climate change to the battle against fascism.

Massive government expansion and restrictions of freedom is fighting against fascism? Perhaps Mr. Blair has his definitions confused...

PRAGUE – Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms.

The right-wing president, a free-market champion, wrote to the U.S. Congress that adopting tough environmental policies to fight climate change would have destructive impact on national economies.

'Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism,' Klaus wrote in response to questions from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce.

'This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world,' he added.

They have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.

"I thought that they would be a great idea at the time, so I bought several packages of them at costco for about $2.75 a bulb.

CAUTION: Although they are only 23 watts, they do overheat and fail in some fixtures that were designed for incandescent bulbs (as the article said - poorly ventilated fixtures). Sometimes the failures are nasty as in my kitchen fixture where one of them actually started burning. The electronics in the base are not as resistant to high temperatures as an ordinary incandescent bulb.

Plus the life is nowhere near the 10x claimed but rather about the same to 3x longer is what I've experienced. SO they aren't all that great. Oh and BTW I think global warming is the biggest fraud in the last 10 years. I bought them because if they worked as advertised (they didn't) they would have saved me some money on my power bill."

The last sentence illustrates how government can combat global warming, if in fact it exists: get out of the way and let private industry and the people themselves solve their way out of it. Incidentally, if this company is not forthcoming about their product they should be sued for fraud (not regulated!). :)

"It's very important that consumers are able to have a consistent and uniform terminology of what constitutes a whole grain," said Barbara Schneeman, director of the FDA's office of nutritional products, labeling and dietary supplements. <.>

While the FDA is trying to make things clearer for consumers, the agency seems to be causing confusion in the food industry.

Health officials are going to review the inspection of a Greenwich Village KFC/Taco Bell, which was completed one day before CBS 2 cameras caught dozens of rats scurrying across the store, jumping on tables, and climbing into food trays.
"It doesn't look like the inspection that was done Thursday met our standards," said Geoffrey Cowley, a health department spokesman. "I don't want to prejudge that. We're concerned and we're going to carefully revaluate that inspection."

This story is a bit old, but merits comment. How can the state ensure that customers are protected? By health inspections? I'd think not. I'd bet health inspections don't result in any increase in consumer safety. I doubt studies have been done one way or the other, as we accept unquestioningly the good intentions and authority of the state. More likely, health inspections, perhaps unconsciously, give politicians a way to legally extort and harass business owners. At least the mafia doesn't hide behind pretensive good intentions. And it is not just politicians doing the shaking down:

NEW YORK -- More than two dozen current and former health inspectors and supervisors have been arrested and charged with shaking down about 300 local restaurateurs in an extortion scheme that allegedly netted the inspectors hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last few years. <.>
Occasionally, the inspectors would demand bribes to over-look actual health code violations, according to Andrew Maloney, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn who will prosecute the case.

How could these inspectors in good conscious overlook blatant health code violations? Perhaps because the violations are, largely, unrelated to the quality or safety of the establishment.

One restaurant owner, describing a visit by two health department inspectors in 1986, told investigators that "the only thing that was missing on these two guys was a mask and gun."

So, if I am in favor of abolishing federal, state, and local health authorities, which I happen to be :), then who is responsible for the health of consumers? The businesses are! First, how can a business prosper by poisoning its customers?! Businesses want their customers to enjoy their food and come back for more. Secondly, when I give money to a restaurant for food, I do so with the implicit understanding that I am eating food free of disease, food that they would not hesitate to serve their own families upon request. If this unspoken contract is violated then the trial lawyers can and should step in and take these folks to the cleaner. Justice is served with government respecting the right to contract. Might we expand this line of thinking to treat our other government regulators to a bit of the same medicine? :)

Of course, free concerned citizens and restaurant owners could always come together and establish voluntary inspections and private certification processes.

"The competition isn't all that great to claim that title here in Washington," Paul said on Fox News Channel regarding his claim to be "the leading advocate for freedom in Washington today."

A guest author, Trista Snyder, has given permission to publish one of her essays. Very good stuff! :)

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ephesians 3:18-19 …May you be able to feel and understand, as all God’s children should, how long, how wide, how deep and how high his love really is; and to experience this love for yourself, though it is so great that you will never see the end of it or fully know or understand it.

I’ve found that the word “Christian” can procure instant bias and often negative connotations. It is not hard to understand why. First, it is a religion that appears splintered; the dizzying number of Protestants, Lutherans, Catholics, some orthodox, some liberal, seems to draw from any attempt at a united front. Second, those who are not Christians justifiably feel isolated by and withdrawn from an ideology that seems to quite easily condemn them to an eternity of hell. Third, hypocrisy runs deep; on one hand is the middle class housewife, who adamantly believes that non-Christians are doomed, yet who gossips about her friends and does not lift a finger to help those less fortunate than she. On the other hand are the spiritual pillars of the religion, entrenched in as much scandal and corruption as our elected officials. This image, perpetuated in part by those responsible for upholding the tenets of their faith, is the problem with Christianity as a religion.

But, here is my challenge: I question that we should even call Christianity a religion, as religion is seen by our standards today. We view religion as something that we fit into the end of our day right before we go to sleep, something that tucks nicely into the Sunday time slot between a bacon and egg breakfast and afternoon football. Religion is something that we motion through, a tradition surrounded by stiff collars and an instant gratification of feeling righteous and vindicated from our immediate transgressions. This is what religion has become to many, and this is not Christianity. Christianity is meant to be lived; it is life, not a religion. It is one unifying principle that connects every living, breathing person to one another. It knows no sects or factions, because it upholds only one simple truth that has been made available to each of us. That truth is love, unconditional love that God has for us, and that we may have for each other if we choose to do so. It is a love that can be felt even in the smallest details. We may feel it as the warmth of the sun on the back of our necks, or in the smile of a stranger. Through all the debate and differences of opinion on how one should lead life, the answer is simple. Jesus said, love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. And beyond that, for though we have been taught to love our neighbor and hate our enemies, Jesus says, But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. We’ve heard to “turn the other cheek” when someone wrongs us, but the unconditional love that He speaks of goes even further: And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. This principle is most evident in His sacrifice. For the longest time, I did not truly understand how one man’s death could somehow atone for the offenses of humanity. The answer to my bewilderment is explained by love. God showed us how to achieve that perfect love, with Jesus as our tangible example. So unconditional was His love for us, that He was willing to die for those very people who were spitting on him and driving spikes into his hands. He prayed for them, he loved them even as they hated him. He wanted to take their sins upon himself, was willing to endure hell and torture to give them, us, a chance at life. That willingness is the absolute manifestation of higher love, a sacrifice so selfless. The point is, the capability to love in that way is within each of us. God speaks to us: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres…And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. And love acts. We cannot protect the weak without lifting a finger. We cannot reject evil if we see others around us in pain and do nothing to ease that pain. We cannot be selfless without, at some point, putting our own needs behind another’s and inconveniencing ourselves for their improvement. And this cannot occur if we are not walking in love at every moment of our lives and if we are only concerned with the Lord’s work for an hour on Sunday mornings. So to the middle class housewife: if you take the love that God had given you and hoard it away, if you take the light that he has bestowed upon you and cloak it from the world, it will be as if those gifts had never existed in the first place. You may sit pure and sinless in your own eyes, but you will not be participating in the one true thing that God bestowed on us and wished for us: His love.

So, is Christianity splintered? No, it is connected by that single lifeline, that perfect love for us that He revealed strikingly in Jesus. What differences in rules and practices that exist among the sects matter little when compared to this unifying principle. God says, One man considers one day more sacred that another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, because he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. Christians may differ on certain finer points of the faith, but the key, the most important cornerstone, is that each of these diverse ideologies and practices is enacted for the greater glory of God. We should respect these traditions if they are true to His Word, because their faithful aim, no matter what the path to that aim, is the glorification of God and the magnification of His love. Another question: does Christianity easily condemn our brothers and sisters in humanity to an eternity of hell? No, again, God’s love is not a condemnation. His gift in Jesus, that example of pure love, is in no way a condemnation; it is an exclamation of good news, a reason to rejoice! Before this act of selfless love, we were mired in our egocentric ways. The love is now tangible and can be accessed by all of humanity, and we should celebrate the presence of God’s hope and peace in every person; where we go wrong is when we trust in Christ, but do not proclaim His perfect love to those around us. Again, hiding our faith from the world is akin to turning our backs on friend and foe alike. And finally, what of our hypocrisy? Why are we judging others when we too are laden with similar transgressions? We need to stop treating Christianity as a modern-day religion and start regarding it as a way of life and a message of love. God did not intend for us to judge others, to only occasionally think of Him, nor did He intend to have us seated in church with our eyes straying to our watches. He wants us to marvel at his subtle touch in every aspect of our lives. When the sky is darkened with clouds, He hopes that we will gaze upward and wonder at the palate of colors He has used to paint the roof of our world. Even when we suffer, He wants us to praise His name in the knowledge that He loves us and that His plan is continually working around us and through us. He says, And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings; because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character, and character, hope. And so, even our pain can be transformed into a means to become closer to Him, and can be used positively to reinforce God’s love on earth. In our lives may we forever be striving to convey that love; may we find peace and joy at every single moment, no matter how small and no matter how difficult; and may we judge no one but rather be unified as one people with the sole objective to praise Him and to spread His compassion to the lonely, the weak, the poor, and the lost. May we love selflessly in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and left; through glory and dishonor; bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as imposters; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

Political maverick and Texas House member Ron Paul formally announced his candidacy for the president of the United States this morning during the “Washington Journal” call-in program on C-SPAN.

Paul stands as one of the last remaining believers in strict enforcement of the Constitution and a limited federal government in Washington D.C. Paul ran unsuccessfully for the White House in 1988 under the Libertarian ticket, but now caucuses with the Republican Party. His political platform includes low taxes, individual liberties and a principled belief in the right to life.

His presidential exploratory committee formed earlier this year stirred up his enormous grassroots support from heartland voters, small government believers and fed-up Republicans who believe current GOP candidates offer no real solutions to an expanding federal government and refuse to tackle America's important issues, such as illegal immigration and an erosion of American's civil liberties.

Under the plan, the first "forever stamp" would cost 41 cents. That is because the commission also proposed increasing the first-class postal rate by 2 cents. The independent commission trumpeted the hike as a victory for consumers because the Postal Service had wanted a 3-cent jump.

A 'victory for consumers'? We wonder why the price of most things drops, yet postal stamps always go up. In fact, with most goods, services, and commodities, the prices of things consistently fall as innovation, technology, and productivity all increase with time. When (inflation controlled) prices do not fall it is either because the product is getting better and has more features (cars) or because government is controlling or meddling in the industry (health care and postal service). In my opinion.

The missing clock didn't stop postal customer Al Cunningham from noticing the amount of time spent waiting for service.

"It's always long here," said Cunningham, 49, an insurance adjuster and former postal employee who was standing in line at the Watson Post Office in Fort Worth.

The Watson Post Office is one of the nation's 37,000 post offices in which clocks have been removed from retail areas as part of a "retail standardization program" launched last year. The effort is designed to give the public-service areas a more uniform appearance, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported in Thursday editions.

"We want people to focus on postal service and not the clock," said Stephen Seewoester, Dallas spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service.

At the Fort Worth post office, the hook that once held up the small battery-powered clock now protrudes from a plaster wall. The clock was taken down months ago.

A customer-service expert at Texas A&M University was not impressed with the decision to take down the timepieces.

"It's silly," said Leonard Berry, holder of the M.B. Zale Chair in Retail and Marketing Leadership. "I guess they think people don't have watches."

"They showed me their badges and said they were from the Illinois Department of Revenue," Wetzel said. "I said, 'Come in.' Maybe I shouldn't have."
So the saga begins...

Home-schooling has been illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938 and ordered all children to be sent to state schools. <.> Only some 500 children are being home-schooled in a country of 80 million. Home-schooling families are prosecuted without mercy.
(Added to 'Homeschooling articles')

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, hired by opponents of the deal, has blasted Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.'s proposed acquisition of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., saying the combination would leave only one provider in the market. Ashcroft, who served as head of the Justice Department for four years until January 2005, was hired by the National Association of Broadcasters to examine the acquisition.

The NAB, which represents traditional radio broadcasters, has been a fierce critic of the acquisition, now worth about $4.4 billion, since it was announced last week.

This reinforces the theory that poorly run monopolies will not remain monopolies for long. The true root market competition here is between the NAB and satellite radio. Either side cannot afford to jack up prices too much or they will loose listeners to the competition. As we can see, the NAB bought a politician for hire to gain political leverage for what will be a political decision.

But, let's go a step further, hypothetically, what if all the NAB stations and satellite radio were to announce a mega radio merger? Should government step in to block it? I still say no; first because economic interference is not a proper role for government and second because aggregate radio will still be competing with television, ipod downloads, newspapers, the internet and many other forms of entertainment and sources of news and music. IMHO, there is no situation where government interference or blockage of a proposed merger is useful or helpful, besides perhaps for the politicians shaking down the companies involved for cash, or get hired for megabucks.

To read another response see the threeleggedstool. And here, for Allan Greenspan on monopolies.

The Indian government is under fire from HIV advocacy groups for paying 25-40% above market price for billions of condoms. Why would someone pay that much for condoms? Well, someone wouldn't. But government would.

The government now obtains condoms from local manufacturers such as the state-owned Hindustan Latex...

'State owned' companies have infested many other areas of India's economy and the constant intrusion of the state into economic matters remains the prime reason for India's poverty.

“Korean condoms are very cheap but they are quite suspect and are bound to be disastrous. I want good-quality condoms,” she said.

Of course the culprit for the presence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in all sweetened foods in the U.S. is the state. The mechanism is the incredibly high tariff on sugar produced in other countries. The U.S. government would rather force manufacturers to use inferior and hazardous high fructose corn syrup, which can be created from corn – a crop grown in the U.S. – than allow them to use more natural sugar from places that seem rather obvious. I don’t know about you, but when I think of sugar, I think of sugar cane in South America, but when the USDA thinks of sugar, apparently they think of cornfields in Nebraska!

The FDA claims to "protect" us from snake-oil salesmen of every stripe, yet when it comes to being able to choose an item of food that is among the most basic and prevalent in any diet, economic considerations trump safety.

thegreatwallofchina.org let's you type in urls to see if they are blocked by the Chinese government. According to them:

It is estimated that some 30,000 Chinese civil servants are monitoring Internet traffic and blocking content that is deemed undesirable. Typing in sensitive keywords such as ‘democracy’, ‘Falun Gong’ or ‘porno’ in a search engine results in an error message. Websites of a sensitive nature are being blocked. Internet service providers also (self)censor, as do individuals: many people do not express their real thoughts because they know these will be censored anyway.

While there is plenty contained therin critical of China, the above link also contains numerous accolades for the increasing Chinese economic freedom, especially this rather, IMHO, complimentary piece by Thomas Sowell:

But, who are we to judge the 'offensiveness' of our online material to the Chinese citizens, I mean, the Chinese government. :)

This sort of meddling and censorship occurs in nearly all countries. We most recently posted a story on an occurrence in India. Of course, there are also American 'civil servants' from the justice department or whoknows where or what agency 'carousing' the internet looking for criminals, terrorists, and/or ostensible malcontents. The difference is a matter of degree and it remains uncertain, IMO, if the US government's surveillance and censorship of the internet, despite vast differences in scale, is any less hurtful than that of the Chinese.

Diligent readers will recall that neoperspectives was hacked last year by the 'Red Devils Crew' or 'Saudi X'. Whether this 'Islamic advocacy' group was private or government sponsored remains unresolved. They managed to delete nearly the entire site and defaced what remained (we reuploaded everything quite quickly). At the time I hypothesized they were upset at:

So, in any event, we meek peace loving folks here at neoperspectives.com seem to be making a habit of rubbing some folks the wrong way, not even including some emails I receive every now and again.

Walter Witschey (thanks for the reply sir, very nice of you) replied to my post below, and told me that he is going to take two major actions (paraphrasing his email response): continue to educate folks and do his best to reduce, reuse, and recycle in his personal life. Not only was his email to me very congenial, but his response to my question was more than satisfactory. Both of those goals are noble, and more importantly, they don't infringe on my property.

Mr. Witschey is convinced that human activity is having an impact on global warming. He summarizes the report's conclusion:

As I stated in my last post on this subject, the IPCC is not a group of scientists. It is a UN interest group. I don't care if the conclusion was 2 + 2 = 4...I would reject it. What is my opinion? I don't have one. I have never seen any evidence that human activity is having a major impact on the world climate, and furthermore, that for some reason we should care.

Now on to what I do care about. We at Neoperspectives believe that governments, by in large, do not solve problems. Governments do things like address a problem, and then make it worse (ie America's war on drugs) or simply create problems (ie the Holocaust). So, the United States government should refrain from doing ANYTHING about global warming...now. Let's examine the science just a little longer. In the meantime, let's hope the American people can come up with some ideas to work out this global warming thing without the federal government getting involved and pushing people around. Walter Witschey's solutions are fine with me.

A large study has found that children of women who ate little fish during pregnancy had lower IQs and more behavioral and social problems than youngsters whose mothers ate plenty of seafood, a finding that challenges the U.S. government's standard advice to limit seafood while pregnant.

If one wants to live healthy, a good rule of thumb is to do the opposite everything the government advises. :) I'm only half joking. Regardless of correctness in this particular issue, it is advisable to get government out of science and stop issuing these sorts of recommendations. They are a waste of taxpayer money, not to mention more often than not harmful to its citizenry.

The study found that children born to women who ate about three servings of fish per week or less -- near the maximum advised by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency -- had lower verbal IQs, more problems with fine motor skills, and higher rates of behavioral and social difficulties, compared to youngsters whose mothers consumed more seafood during pregnancy.

Every day I turn on the internet news to hear more and more about how Global Warming is a certainty, and doubt is fading, and only the most diehard environment haters can still be clinging to the ridiculous notion that its all a bunch of crap!

Well, I, Geoff Dobson, will continue to be a self-proclaimed hater. As a former X-Files junkie, I doubt everything and trust no one. So I will continue to doubt every article I read and every pundit I hear and ESPECIALLY every politician that speaks. So when I read the first line of the above article:

I start doubting. Why? Because the IPCC is not a "group of climate scientists". It is a United Nations organization. But I am not on authority on this. So you shouldn't trust that statement if I say it. I'm not even a scientist. But one of the smartest scientists in the world can easily, in plain English, explain what the IPCC is:

They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

And who is that deranged lunatic telling the public that the IPCC is NOT a "group of climate scientists" and hardly an authority on the matter? It's none other than Richard Lizden. He's just the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And what does he think about the chicken littles running around talking up the global warming fears (whatever that means...)?

I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

I'll sleep well tonight, like I do every night. And then I'll drive to work and contribute greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. And I won't even been too upset if I fart once or twice. Now, Walter Witschey, what are you doing about global warming tomorrow? If you can answer that, I'll read past the first fragment of sentence in your article.

I agree with Boortz, and I'm happy to say most of the readers at Digg.com do too.

An excellent summary of Ron Paul's leadership in Congress. In other news, a sort of eccentric ad hoc poll of myspace users finds Ron Paul with the lead for the Republican nomination! Don't read into this too much...

A bionic eye that can restore sight to the blind should be available commercially within two years, scientists behind the revolutionary technology announced yesterday.

An early version of the prosthetic retina has already been fitted to six patients with retinitis pigmentosa, a degenerative and incurable eye condition that affects 1 in 3,500 people. All have recovered the ability to detect light and motion, and even to make out large letters and to distinguish between objects such as a cup, a knife and a plate.

The second-generation device that is now starting trials should provide even better vision, as it contains 60 light-sensitive electrodes, compared with 16 in the previous model.

More improvements are expected within five to seven years with a 1000-electrode implant that will enable previously blind people to recognise faces, Professor Humayun said.

Imagine if you were blind. Perhaps I should stop there, because it is impossible for our imagination to do us true justice. It is easy enough to take these sorts of things for granted, forgetting what a precious gift sight really is. But, try to imagine you are blind and you hear this news and, despite the risks, you and/or your family are willing to pay tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands to try this experimental procedure. Imagine you are an entrepreneurial doctor, flush with money from venture capitalists, attempting to do good and tap this market (synonymous goals), and you research and discover this amazing new procedure. So, our two imaginary friends come together, money is exchanged, the procedure is completed and....

Because his actions are illegal as they have not been sanctioned by the bureaucrats at the FDA:

The artificial retina has been cleared by US regulators to begin trials on between 50 and 75 people suffering from two of the most common causes of blindness, opening the way for millions more to benefit from similar implants in the future.

The trials will be conducted at five centres in the US, on patients over 50. The US Food and Drug Administration has insisted on older subjects as they have less to lose if the experiments go wrong.

Reminds me of the many stories of how the FDA was falling over itself denying treatments to critically ill patients in order to ostensibly 'protect' them.

In conclusion, it is likely safe, affordable, and even further advanced bionic optical procedures would be available at present if it were not for the FDA and Co.

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs lambasted teacher unions today, claiming no amount of technology in the classroom would improve public schools until principals could fire bad teachers. <.>

"I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way," Jobs said. "This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy."

It will now be legal to pay a women 250 British Pounds for her eggs. Previously they could only use their eggs as currency for fertility treatments or sterilization. Given that the British have socialized medicine, one would think there would be little use for this kind of 'currency', but I digress. As we might expect, these sorts of regulations have a predictable effect:

Campaigners for change say that this has led to a chronic shortage of eggs for scientific use.

In the United States, these shortages do not exist because people can be paid, as far as I am aware, any mutually agreeable amount. Still, there are those who would limit freedom here, the 'National Academics', whose name appears to provide apt description, came out with a report last year stating:

Health, not money, should be the priority of women hoping to sell their eggs to science, the National Academies concluded in a 240-page report published Tuesday. As a result, researchers should be barred from paying women for their eggs.

There are shortages of many other health commodities, which could be alleviated by removing government interference in the transactions of mutually interested individuals. Organ shortages, blood shortages etc...

EYRE Peninsula man Phillip Kerkhof has wrestled a 1.3m shark - and lived to tell the tale with barely a scratch on him.

On Monday night, after "quite a few vodkas", the 42-year-old bricklayer from Louth Bay, near Port Lincoln, thought it would be a good idea to jump in the ocean and wrestle with a 1.3m bronze whaler shark that had been spotted "hanging around".

He caught the shark with his bare hands, dragging it onto the Louth Bay jetty to the cheers of other fishermen. The only damage was to his jean, which received a few nips.

But rather than keep hold of his "trophy shark" as a memento, Mr Kerkhof skinned and gutted it, and has been eating it all week.

"I've got 10 or a dozen real good feeds from it, and I've still got a fair bit of him in the freezer to last me a while," he said.

Mr Kerkhof admits his actions were not very clever and "wouldn't recommend anyone try it".

"It's amazing what vodka does to you, but when I woke up the next morning I thought it probably wasn't the smartest thing to do," he said.

If happiness, true long term happiness, is the goal of life, and what else could supercede this?, then it follows that we must tirelessly pursue our own happiness through whatever means possible. As stated in 'Personal and Mental Responsibility' Part I and Part II, it is imperative we recognize happiness comes entirely from within us and we alone are responsible for it. Despite the great difficulties, we can change our conscious experience, we can become better people and happier people, the terms are synonymous, and eventually even fundamentally modify our conscious experience, attaining a greater level of control over our thoughts and emotions.

The hardest part is maintaining focus on this goal. The mind will utilize every trick in the book to prevent our will from achieving respectable power. Constant distractions, petty desires, recurrent thoughts, emotional and biologic swings all compete to dilute steadfastness. To think, "I would only be happy if..." is to know the treachery of the mind.

A relentless, ruthless, take no prisoners approach, defined somewhat distinct from this agitating verbiage, may be necessary in order to assure nothing becomes a greater priority and nothing stands in our way. This approach bears fruit regardless of starting point, past actions and experiences, and outside influences. Adverse life events and/or a genetic shafting may conspire to deliver a 'raw deal', yet to view life as such brings only cynicism and delusion. Intrinsic in such interpretation is external comparisons to others, a path shrouded in fallacious verdict. Little good can come of such contrastations, or from dwelling on or lamenting past events. Instead, attempt to approach each moment as a new person, free from weighty entanglements.

The first step is becoming aware of what exists to change, along with the wonderfulness of what is. Take joy even in your faults, for they are the essence of humanness and, like 'gems', provide opportunity to learn and advance. Concomitantly, we must vigilantly seek out positive influences to facilitate this introspection and advancement regardless of venue; environment, therapy, drugs, habits, and many others are all of vital importance. Positive environments have been previously discussed, but what about therapy and drugs? Aren't those only for people who have something wrong with them? This misconception stems from a lack of societal humility. There is something 'wrong' with all of us! Counseling benefits anyone, especially if approached with the proper intention. In fact, don't we do a form of this, if differently labeled, with friends and family everyday? The same with medications, just because we are not functionally deficient, as defined when compared to others, does not mean we are living up to our own potentials. Medications, even in small doses, if used carefully and prudently can be used as a crutch and give us a sense of what 'normal' is, and by 'normal' I mean normal for us, individually, better and happier, without contrast to the general population. Diet is an important form of medication, or vice versa depending on your semantic preference, there is really little difference between the two; rigid categories with walls of judgment as separation rarely prove accurate.

Constant internal monitoring is perhaps the most important aspect of self improvement and increased happiness as it aids in the development of positive habits. When you exercise, how do you feel? Better or worse? The areas in your life and mind that you've marked for improvement, how do these fare after a given activity, after a few distinct given meals? Generic advice is always useful as a general guide to healthy living and happiness, but self feedback is infinitely more important, as individual differences are prolific enough to negate many assumed commonalities. As an aside, it is unfortunate the medical establishment and government agencies appear remiss in subscription.

The point is, everything we do and everything around us has an effect on any given mental part of us, and any given mental part of us has an effect on every other mental, and even physical, part of us. Somewhat paradoxically, every single thing we do is so important and effects us so much, yet we cannot let the importance consume us. Almost as if to have passion divulged of negative emotion, a controlled, compassionate, and calm passion.

This calm, almost uncaring, passion not only increases happiness and control, but also results in increased discernment, allowing one to view things as they actually are, without the pre categorizing, associating, and attachment of mental baggage. If this happy passion is directed at oneself, and is able to thwart the protective barriers of the ego and the mind, increased lucency of the self and the nature of consciousness is possible.

Forsaken amongst previously mentioned tools necessary to increase happiness, free will, and this passion/joy of life, is the focal key: meditation. Meditation, prayer, concentration, focus, relaxation, interchangeable terms again designate virtually the same entity, is of critical importance. We all do a form of this everyday, but a more sustained, focused, and productive specialization and application, swirled with some individual tailorship, would surely prove uniformly positive.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. And teens are among the first workers to go.
(Added to 'The Minimum Wage')

One in three households across Britain is now dependent on the state for at least half its income, it emerged today.

Official government figures showed that more than seven million households are getting most of their income from government handouts.

The figures also reveal the huge gulf in welfare dependency between single parent and two-parent households.

These unfortunate British policies are likely creating large numbers of single parent families and enhancing and spreading poverty.

But it suggests that David Cameron's Conservatives are worried about seeming uncaring, and therefore not ready to take drastic action and copy American-style policies that have produced huge drops in benefit claims in the United States.

President Hugo Chavez's government has drafted a decree allowing officials to take control of food distribution chains, including supermarkets and storage depots, if services are interrupted, officials said Sunday.

Industry and Commerce Minister Maria Cristina Iglesias said the decree would help curb supply problems that have caused severe shortages of meats, milk and sugar in recent weeks.

If you recall, a previous hypothesis put forth was that shortages of anything people are willing to pay for, with the possible exception of Harley Davison motorcycles :), are caused by government policies.

Shortages of items ranging from milk to coffee have occurred since early 2003, when Chavez began regulating prices for 400 basic products as a way to counter inflation and protect the poor.

Feb 2007 GQ Long but interesting read on the Club For Growth elected senator from Oklahoma.

2/4/07 Neoperspectives.com If you will look to your left you will see a new 'neoperspective' has finally been added. A summary:

A look at medical education in Nevada, including discussion of residencies and recommendations on improving access, affordability, and quality healthcare for the state of Nevada.

What is the proper roll for government in society? Policy makers constantly wrestle with this question as they attempt to address issues of concern to their communities. In many areas the private sector is acknowledged as more efficient and innovative than the public sector. History has shown governmental regulation and control over industries and sectors of the economy often yield dismal results. However, there is still much debate and large swathes of the US economy are still fall under sway of the state and/or federal government. Two notable such areas are Education and Healthcare, and, most especially, the education of healthcare workers. The state of Nevada presents a unique opportunity to compare and contrast two differing styles of Medical education. This alternating dance of competition and cooperation between the two schools, pardon the pun, of thought serve as a microcosm to similar movements playing out across the country and will be the focus of this paper.

Yesterday was Milton Friedman day!, for those who missed it. PBS ran a documentary last night on Milton Friedman, if you can believe it. Would Milton be rolling in his grave over having his obituary/documentary carried by a publicly financed station? Probably not because he was interviewed by PBS on other occasions.

(This is a hilarious column, which I just ran across, added to the 1/1/07 New Years posting greeting)

1/24/06 Steve Kubby (not too shabby) One of the few things I approved of in the President's speech was his health care proposal, a step towards removing the incentive imbalance towards employer based health insurance, despite what the New York Times may think about it.

I can't vouch for the efficacy of DCA, whether it might actually 'cure' some forms of cancer or help in treatments, but the basic premise of this article is true and deserves further exploring and analysis.

To scientists, he is the world's happiest man. His level of mind control is astonishing and the upbeat impulses in his brain are off the scale.

MRI scans showed that he and other long-term meditators - who had completed more than 10,000 hours each - experienced a huge level of "positive emotions" in the left pre-frontal cortex of the brain, which is associated with happiness. The right-hand side, which handles negative thoughts, is suppressed.

Further studies have shown that even novices who have done only a little meditation have increased levels of happiness.

Now Matthieu Ricard, 60, a French academic-turned-Buddhist monk, is to share his secrets to make the world a happier place. The trick, he reckons, is to put some effort into it. In essence, happiness is a "skill" to be learned.

Pretty inspiring! Notice the correlation between 'mind control' and happiness. Increasing free will by recognizing that the vast majority of our current thoughts and feelings are not of our choosing (nor would we choose them if we could :)) is a good first step.

Many observers who say that they cannot understand how anyone can be worth $100 million a year do not realize that it is not necessary that they understand it, since it is not their money.

We've already covered the statements by John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats, who dance around the idea of regulating or censoring blogs or infringing on freedom of speech. To further hammer the point home that is seems only to be our friends on the left who advocate media and internet censorship, the following stories have been compiled:

1/20/07 Some brief remarks here noting that Kucinich appears in favor of bringing back the 'fairness doctrine', which would require all news and opinion shows to give equal time for all opinions. Like most of liberalism, while it sounds good, it is inherently tyrannical, and would serve to stifle conservative and libertarian minded media, as it did in the past. From another article:

Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."

When he says 'we' he means, the Democratic party and the liberal ideology. Regardless of who is in power, why would we want government to be a position to move any agenda anywhere in the media?

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was also on hand at the conference and took broadcasters to task for their current content, speaking of "too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists."

You see, he, Michael Copps, and his agency know what is best for us, the American People.

He [tells Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, according to this transcript via Drudge, that Rupert Murdoch's Fox interests will have to be broken up. He's cagier, though, about whether GE, owner of the network on which he speaks, will specifically be targeted, saying, "Yes, we`re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn`t mean we`re going to break up all of GE. What we`re going to do is say that media enterprises can`t be as big as they are today. I don`t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration."

Continuing his campaign against a free press, el presidente decided not to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television, the country's oldest commercial television station.

This is on top of onerous laws such as the one regulating a certain percentage of music on the radio be Venezuelan (just like the French and their television).

This is not to say there are no Conservatives or Republicans who do not trample on free speech; look no further than aspiring Presidential hopeful John McCain and his 'Campaign Finance Reform' law. Yet, the main point is nearly all threats to free speech and a market based media come from our friends on the left.

"Most Americans would cower and cringe and raise their hands and surrender like a good little slave," he told reporters at his home this week.

"I won't. Under no circumstances. I do not tolerate cowardliness, oppression, bulliness, and I certainly don't tolerate a federal agency that has absolutely zero jurisdiction in my state, never mind in my county, in my town."

At 7:30am, at the instigation of the talk radio hosts, cars, trucks, and virtually every other type of motor vehicle you could imagine began circling the state capitol blaring their horns. Thousands of angry citizens swarmed into downtown Nashville and traffic all around town came to a virtual standstill. By noon that day, with the deafening sound of car horns continuing to blare non-stop (in fact, I lost part of my hearing that fateful day), legislators supporting the income tax called in the State Troopers to bar the doors of the state capitol. One pro-tax legislator was carted away by ambulance with heart problems - threatening the razor-thin majority in support of the tax hike.
By late afternoon, the legislature had abandoned the income tax proposal entirely, closed the state budget gaps with temporary measures, and ended the legislative session for the year while they could still get out of town with their lives. Car horns continued to blare well into the night. In all my years working in public policy in Washington D.C. and several state capitals, it is the most exhilarating experience I have been privileged to be witness to and be a part of.

Bangert writes a succinct proposal to keep the gas tax, but remove the Federal Government from management and building of our nation's highways. While I disagree with the need for gas taxes, and perhaps Bangert is just being politically savvy in his support of their continuance, I certainly can support relieving the Federal Government from control of the nation's highways. Unlike many, I view President Dwight Eisenhower's construction of our national highway system as a national abomination rather than some sort of national treasure. Not that I have any particular objection to highways or roads; I think we can agree that there was a 'need', if it's worth contemplating, for expanding infrastructure at the time. Yet private entities, or at worst, collaborative state governments, were and are plenty capable of fulfilling our transportation 'needs' - by the way, I really hate to use that word 'needs' as it provokes the wrong connotations; no one can know our 'needs' until after they have been met, as the process involves limitless interactions and an existential like vote tallying of freely acting individuals, beyond the predictability of any individual and certainly over the head of any government entity.

Regardless, Bangert's view regarding the value of state corroboration brings up some interesting points. First, beyond transportation, this sort of state cooperation can replace the bumbling actions of the Federal Government on many levels. I hesitate to use this example, as I am opposed to licensing laws, but if we are going to have them, they might as well be uniform and, by uniform I don't mean 'imposed' by the distant Feds as some now advocate. There are mutual benefits inherent in states coming together, voluntarily, to facilitate the movement of various professionals across state lines:

The Nursing Licensure Compact is a mutual recognition model of nursing licensure that allows a nurse to have one license (in his/her state of residency) and to practice in other states (both physical and electronic), subject to each state’s practice law and regulation. Under mutual recognition, a nurse may practice across state lines unless otherwise restricted. In order to achieve mutual recognition, each state must enact legislation authorizing the Nurse Licensure Compact. States entering the compact also adopt administrative rules and regulations for implementation of the compact. There are currently 20 states that have implemented the Nurse Licensure Compact and 1 additional state pending. Nevada has declined to join at each of the last two Legislative sessions.

Nowadays it is easy to hear the pundits and media lauding the respective 'pioneering' universal healthcare efforts of CA gov Schwarzenegger and GOP presidential hopeful Gov Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Yet, there is nothing innately 'pioneering' about these policies, although perhaps they are pioneering in the sense they offer new 'tweaks' in the way with which they zigzag in the same direction.

In fact, these efforts have been tried before in Tennessee and this, rather inspiring, article lays it out the results so well, IMO, it has been added to 'Required Reading'.

In July 2005 Sundquist was named head of a national panel on improving Medicaid.

I meant to post this story some time ago because I think it is quite illustrative. For background, a couple in Brazil discovered their son had a rare disease:

    The couple soon realized that Igor's condition would require careful management and virtually around-the-clock monitoring, not to mention a panoply of special drugs. The Souzas had access to free care through Brazil's vast public health-care network, but the large hospitals and long waiting lists were difficult to navigate. To get Igor to the doctor, Fernanda rose at 4 a.m., taking two buses to line up just to make an appointment for a month later. The family couldn't afford private care on Mr. Souza's $300 a month salary working in a restaurant.
    The Souzas saw an answer thousands of miles to the north, on Martha's Vineyard where Brazilian immigrants are the backbone of the local tourism industry. In 1989, Mr. Souza's father, José, found summer work in a restaurant called the Navigator, eventually settling here in 1997. <.>
    Mr. Souza says he has paid almost all of Igor's medical bills -- about $20,000 annually -- out of pocket, without insurance or help from government programs. He feared accepting aid would jeopardize his family's attempt to gain permanent U.S. residency.

The point here is that this couple left 'free healthcare', aka socialized medicine, for the private system here in the United States. Once here they did not purchase insurance or use government programs and were able to attain care better than that which they left behind.

Rep Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid - this time as a Republican.

Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.

Paul, of Lake Jackson, acknowledges that the national GOP has never fully embraced him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP's large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas. He bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution.

Doesn't the Constitution define, by definition, the role of the Federal Government? Isn't that the whole purpose of it? Why even bother with a constitution if it doesn't stop government from doing willy-nilly whatever it wants?

So, for these reasons, we at Neoperspectives.com are (drum roll) officially endorsing Rep. Ron Paul for President. We may be jumping the gun on this, as this current press release is merely announcing the creation of an 'exploratory committee' to examine the feasibility of a presidential run, but this is going to take a true 'grassroots' effort, so why not strike while the iron is hot?

While it may be the case that Rep Paul will start as a long shot underdog, a platform on which to espouse the virtues of limited government will still be beneficial and necessitate the shifting of the winning candidate(s) to accommodate libertarian minded voters. With 10-40% of the electorate classifying as some form of libertarian, there is certainly a possibility for a significant upswelling and consolidation of a powerful voting block.

The only objection some might raise to Dr Paul's nomination is his national security stance, which might, perhaps, divide even the board members here at Neoperspectives.com.

Despite my personal wariness on his foreign policy views, as well as some aspects of monetary policy, a quick assessment and prioritization leaves little doubt that this man offers the best chance to repeal socialism, end economic slavery, and expand freedom, thus, IMHO, enhance morality and expand happiness in the United States and throughout the world. :) And, let's be frank, isn't that really the goal of this all anyway? :)

I happen to think the greatest threat facing us stems from the advancing aforementioned slavery within, not from Islamic terrorists, and even so, some of Paul's arguments ring true; there are aspects of US foreign policy which have certainly done more harm than good over the years.

Regardless, a few third world thugs we can send back to the stone age, if they aren't there already, any day. I'd rather protect our freedoms now, here at home first. :) I'd hardly say this is an extreme position and by the same token, I'd hardly say it is extreme to support and endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States... even if he hasn't yet announced his candidacy. :)

Local officials unfairly hurt private trash haulers by requiring them to process garbage at government-owned facilities, the haulers' lawyer told the Supreme Court Monday.

Where to start with this one? The Governor's misguided attempt to follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts yields this gem:

Schwarzenegger would tax doctors 2% of their gross revenue and place a 4% tax on hospitals.

This is interesting because our friends on the left (and even today's right) routinely justify tax increases on cigarettes because it discourages their use by raising the price. Yet, with healthcare the result should be different? The same tune is sung when gas prices rise and a 'windfall tax' on oil companies is suggested.

This was a previously posted story, lost in the archives, that has now been added to it's proper place in 'Required Reading'. Dang it's good! :)

Condon recommended 121 firings last year, most of which are still pending due to union procedures. Only 41 of those firings have taken effect.

Let us not get caught up in the fearmongering that kids at public schools are getting molested or at any great risk beyond the standard brain rot experienced from a public education. The point here is that only 41 firings of 121 have taken effect due to union policies.

It's almost impossible because of the rules in the New York schools' 200-page contract with their teachers. There are so many rules that principals rarely even try to jump through all the hoops to fire a bad teacher. It took six years of expensive litigation before the teacher who wrote Cutee101 was fired. During those six years, he received more than $300,000 in salary.

"Up, down, around, we've paid him," said the chancellor. "He hasn't taught, but we've had to pay him, because that is what is required under the contract."

Hundreds of teachers the city calls incompetent, racist, or dangerous have been paid millions.

They're not really made of rubber, of course. They are big, empty rooms where they store the teachers they are afraid to let near the kids. The teachers go there and sit, hang around, read magazines, and waste time. The city pays $20 million a year to house teachers in rubber rooms.

The same thing takes place in the auto industry, and is why unions will drive it to bankruptcy (unlike public schools the auto industry actually has competition)...

The problem arises because 77 percent of the world’s known oil reserves are in the hands of state-owned oil companies.

An interesting recap of 263 news stories from the year 2006, searchable by state, where citizens successfully defended their life, liberty, and property with firearms. Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, most shootings probably don't make the newspapers, and of those making the newspapers many are probably not caught by the diligent 'freepers' (posters on freerepublic.com), and labeled with the correct key words. Even so, it is still interesting as a reference and will be added to 'Guns and Crime'.

A good article illustrating the harmful effects of increasing the minimum wage. Of special interest:

For example, some restaurant owners wondered whether tipped workers could perform the duties of nontipped workers, such as kitchen prep work, to offset some labor costs. Attorneys and labor experts told association members this would not be legal, Symonds said.

Private businesses cannot pay people what it thinks they are worth or have them do jobs they need done.

Interestingly, some Medical Residents do not make minimum wage, even now. Maybe they should sue. Amazing how one can fall afoul of the law...

What does it means to 'take mental responsibility' for our life experiences? If we simply try harder can we easily change the way we think and feel? Are we are all capable of self change simply by 'toughening up'? And, most importantly, do successfully happy people attain their happiness entirely by virtue of their free will and vice versa? Part I did not intend to answer any of the above in the affirmative. In fact, the conclusion reached is the opposite; free will, despite its apparent existence, is most often an illusionary phenomena, we perceive we possess it, but this apparent ownership is often only superficial.

For example, someone who is addicted to cigarettes will smoke a cigarette. They may 'choose' what store they buy their pack at, and when, where, and the manner in which they light up. While it is semantically correct to label these other actions 'choices', they are unimportant and interpreted only to retain some semblance of false dignity. Yet, this makes all the difference to the mind. Governments do the same thing, totalitarian governments such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many others hold elections, but all the candidates are chosen by the government. The people are given the perception of freedom even whilst they languish in chains. The definition of Fascism is that government allows private industry to exist, but mandates what must be done with it, giving the illusion of private ownership and property protection.

So, the central thesis is not that we are strong, but that we are weak. We are slaves, held in bondage by our desires, insecurities, anxieties, and lower thought processes, which all arise and influence our thoughts and actions without any volitional choice of our own. However, the fear of exposing our utter weakness, the risk of total demolition of our false self image, the humility of shattering any vestige of pride, and the pain inherent in the realization of our fragility and insecurity of our true mental state all contrive to keep us blind to the very nature of ourselves.

It was in this same seeking spirit that Harry Browne said, "If government had taken over the auto industry in 1920, today we'd all be driving Model-T cars -- and saying, 'If it weren't for the government, we'd have no cars at all.'" We look at government projects and think, "Thank God government was there to fulfill our great needs; we have water, electricity, roads, all thanks to Government." Of course, we would be more than perfectly capable of fashioning these things for ourselves and doing it better and cheaper than government. All we have to do is look around us; we live and tolerate amazing incompetence, beat down daily by the corruption, the regulation, the taxes, yet we never dare shake our worldview by questioning common assumptions. We prefer the security of bondage rather than risk the challenges and responsibilities of freedom. So it is with the mind as well.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams 1776

However, this canvas of pessimism is misleading as the background colors of life are bright, not dark. We are still surrounded by humming commerce. Raw capitalism, brought about by the free choices of individuals, delivers the highest living standard in the world. Immigrants flock to the United States and even our most ardently critical citizens, interestingly, remain in country. This 'voting with your feet' phenomena occurs, even though the reasons behind the migrations may not be fully understood by the participants themselves. So too, the mind is self-aware; our higher thinking processes are dimly aware of our bondage. Our true self, the part with volition and morality, grasps that our higher mind is being overruled and overrun by our lower animalistic nature. How can we be sure? Because, upon questioning, every single person can list their own faults off like a laundry list. We are, and what a gift it is, aware, on some level, of the contradictions in what we think and what we feel. Just like people are quite good at making economic choices for themselves, people are remarkably good at understanding themselves, on an intellectual level.

So wherin lies the problem? The problem is that the master, the lower mind, works to keep the slave, the higher mind and our true self (the part that chooses), in bondage. Thus, while we may be somewhat aware of many of our faults, vices, desires, and erroneous thoughts and feelings, we lack the urgency to deal with them. We do not feel a sense of acute emergency despite the continual suffering our cognitive dissonance, internal conflicts, generates. We think, "sure, I tend to be an anxious person", or, "yea, I'm often sad", or "I probably drink too much", but it often doesn't bother us to the point that we find it totally unacceptable to remain in these recurrent cycles of suffering.

Worse, and most destructively, we blame our feelings on outside influences. I used to work at an HIV/Aids hotline and we had significant numbers of persons with anxiety disorders repeatedly call, who had been repeatedly tested for HIV and/or did not have an exposure, but their anxiety prevented them from believing the tests, results, or us counselors. The problem was not the outside event, their exposure, or the existence of HIV, their problem stemmed from their internal processing of outside events. The problem was within them and upon questioning, they nearly always revealed past spates of intense anxiety, fear over various self-created stressors. If the focus remains on the outside events, inner reflection and positive change is not possible. The cycles and patterns must be broken.

Is this not reminiscent of politicians? They focus on superficial political winners like prayer in school and the so-called 'banning of Christmas' rather than on the deeper socialization of public schools. They focus on new aid programs for poorer persons, without the realization that existing aid programs and expansive government policies are the cause of the very poverty they seek to alleviate. The root causes are ignored in the place of more politically viable and emotional swatting of symptoms and symbols.

Will an individual who has achieved (more on possible approaches to this in the coming essay 'In Pursuit of Happiness') a level of control over the mind and experiences a diminishing of negative thoughts and emotions never appear angry or frustrated? Of course not, first because of the difficulty in bringing about change to the point where an individual truly has freedom and has taken full responsibility over their own mental state and secondly, because the battle is entirely internal, external expressions of anger or even the use of violence may be appropriate, moral, and necessary in some situations. Yet, even while the person is appearing outwardly enraged or violent, they remain perfectly calm and loving inside. So, in a sense, an outside event can cause a reaction, yet the reaction is volitional and physical rather than mental and the event should not disrupt inner peace. This discrepancy is important to understand because misconceptions can lead to derision of the idea that negative emotions come from only within us and are not caused by external events.

It's been a tradition, well sort of, here at Neoperspectives to post humorous stories on holidays, so here are some more:

Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido, an intestinal specialist, traveled to the Caribbean island on Thursday aboard an aircraft chartered by the Cuban government, according to Spain's left-leaning El Periodico de Catalunya newspaper.

The plane carried medical equipment not available in Cuba in case the leader needs further surgery due to his progressively failing health, the newspaper reported.

Garcia Sabrido will carry out tests on Castro to see if he needs another operation after undergoing emergency surgery for intestinal bleeding in July, the newspaper said.

Why is this medical equipment not available in Cuba? Would this doctor be flown in for any citizen? This story takes a little jab at the lovechild of the left: inequality. Although it might be the case that many Cubans have access to health care, the health care they receive is subpar. Cuban society is also stratified and even the upper echelons of the Cuban healthcare system are no match for the advances of capitalism elsewhere in the Western world.

See also, 'Harvesting Cash' a Washington Post story collection on agra subsidies.

An update from a previously posted(1/2/06) Wall Street Journal story with an unhappy ending. This article is interesting because, IMO, it is a great illustration of how Washington works. The main points I've excerpted here are just to show how politicians benefit as they shake down hardworking citizens, on all sides of a given issue, for cash, in a manner reminiscent of the mafiosa. When politicians have the power to affect change in a given area, corruption and discord and immorality soon follows. The root of this issue is not the reprehensible action government chose to take, but that it has the power to take any action at all.

In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.

A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores. <.>

The first challenge to Hettinga came in late 2001, when Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) proposed a measure that would have forced Hettinga to pay in to the pool that Shamrock was governed by.

Shamrock's chairman, Norman P. McClelland, had contributed thousands of dollars to Kyl, beginning with Kyl's first House campaign, in 1986. <.>

In Nunes's first run for Congress, in 2002, he pulled in $130,000 from dairy interests, second only to President Bush among federal candidates, election records show.

Nunes's bill and Kyl's amendment initially went nowhere. So Kyl, a conservative Republican, found an unlikely ally in Reid, then the Senate's fiercely partisan Democratic whip.

Reid was no newcomer to dairy issues. Nevada's population was growing faster than its dairies could supply milk, so prices tended to be high. Milk plants that had to import milk from far away thought they could get it cheaper if they did not have to pay regulated prices. In 1999, Reid helped them out. He slipped an amendment into a spending bill exempting milk plants in the Las Vegas area from federal pricing rules.

David Coon, vice president of Anderson Dairy Inc., then the area's largest milk plant, hailed Reid's amendment as a "good example of the good we feel he has done fighting for our state." Reid later listed Anderson as one of 51 "soft money" donors to his Searchlight Leadership Fund, which funds Democratic candidates in Nevada.

The 1999 provision still left the Las Vegas area subject to some federal milk regulations. By 2003, fixing that had become a pressing concern as Dean Foods began construction on a $40 million, state-of-the-art milk plant outside town.

That year, Reid and Kyl saw they could make a deal. Kyl agreed to back removing all of Nevada from federal milk regulation, and Reid agreed to support legislation cracking down on Hettinga and protecting Arizona dairies from competition from low-priced Nevada milk. In 2003, the senators co-sponsored an amendment with both provisions. In effect, Nevada bottlers would get some of the same rights that were being taken away from Hettinga. Under this arrangement, the money the Yuma dairyman would save by operating outside the federal system would have to be paid in to the pool. <.>

Hettinga said that at Lewis's request he chipped in $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign later that year. He also gave $4,000 to Lewis's campaign war chest between 2003 and 2006, records show.

A few months later, Lewis used his power to kill the Kyl-Reid measure. "Congressman Lewis did it strictly on behalf of a constituent and because he thought Hein's deal was good for consumers," said Lewis's deputy chief of staff, Jim Specht. <.>

Eight groups with an interest in the legislation reported overall lobbying spending of more than $5 million in 2005 and the first half of 2006. Dean Foods reported spending almost $2.5 million, including $500,000 for outside lobbyists. One was Charles M. "Chip" English Jr. of Thelen Reid & Priest. English also represented Shamrock Foods, United Dairymen of Arizona and the Dairy Institute of California.

During 2005, English fine-tuned the language in the milk bill. "My hand can be seen throughout the bill," he said in an interview. Pick a paragraph in the legislation, he said, and "either I wrote it or I commented on it." <.>

Hettinga also turned to the courts. In October, he filed a lawsuit charging that the milk bill was unconstitutional because it was aimed at penalizing a single individual.

"I still think this is a great country," Hettinga said. "In Mexico, they would have just shot me."

All that livestock owners had to do was show up at their county agriculture office and fill out a short form certifying the number of animals they owned as of June 1, 2002. Short-staffed county offices were hard pressed to verify the numbers. They did only limited spot checks. <.>

Then, on Feb. 1, 2003, the shuttle exploded. To ensure recovery of the debris and pay for emergency costs, President Bush issued a federal disaster declaration. As an unintended result, most of East Texas was then eligible for livestock funds. Denton County's livestock owners collected $433,000, records show.

"Speaking personally, I didn't think it was necessary at that point in time," said Calvin Peterson, an 81-year-old rancher who heads the local farm committee. "It might have been more political than anything."

In Henderson County, about 100 miles southeast of Dallas, Nico de Boer felt the same way. When he arrived from the Netherlands 17 years ago, de Boer had 90 acres, a house, one barn and fewer than 200 cows. Today, he has 1,000 acres, multiple cow barns and sheds, 650 cows that produce 3 million pounds of milk monthly, a BMW in the driveway, a swimming pool, and two more farms in neighboring counties.

The rolling hills surrounding his sprawling farm receive a generous average of 40 inches of rain annually. When the shuttle exploded, pastures were full and there hadn't been a drought or any other type of weather disaster in years, records show. But after the presidential disaster declaration, John Reeves of the local USDA office informed livestock owners in Henderson County they were eligible. They eventually collected $751,083 despite no shuttle damage.

"The livestock program was a joke. We had no losses," de Boer said. "I don't know what Congress is thinking sometimes."<.>

"We registered about a 3 [magnitude] or something," said Don Boyd, a local emergency management official. "We had some minor shaking, some cracks in the chimneys, that sort of thing."

USDA officials didn't check for damage because none of the local dairy farmers complained.

Yet in 2003 more than 200 livestock owners in Whatcom County collected $1.6 million under the Livestock Compensation Program -- one of the largest payouts for a county nationwide -- for the same earthquake.

A 2001 presidential disaster declaration for the Nisqually earthquake had named 22 counties, including Whatcom. Dairy farmers and ranchers in Washington state collected nearly $4 million in livestock funds, according to records analyzed by The Post.

She said some Whatcom County dairy farmers came into the office to report that they had accidentally received government checks. <.>

In still another news release, Brancel implored (Reminds me of this story) livestock owners to apply for the money. "If you own eligible livestock in eligible counties you are eligible," he wrote. "In these tough economic times, you don't want to miss the opportunity to receive money to help pay some of the bills."

Wisconsin livestock owners took Brancel up on his offer, collecting more than $39 million. Still, some dairy farmers and county officials were confused about why they were getting the money.

"In this county, we got a lot of questions from producers: 'Why are we eligible?' " recalled Tom Schneider, the head of the USDA office in Manitowoc County, where livestock owners got $1.5 million. "Our answer was 'Because we were told you were eligible.' "

Without generous government help, farm-state politicians say, thousands of these hardworking families would fail, threatening the nation's abundant food supply.

The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers starting out. <.>

A March 2005 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that hundreds of counties most dependent on subsidies had suffered the biggest population losses and posted the weakest job growth. "Farm payments appear to create dependency on even more payments, not new engines of economic growth," concluded the study's author, Mark Drabenstott.

Another example of government action resulting in the opposite of their intentions. However, this time, somewhat refreshingly :), we can question their intentions as well. Why should the goal be to 'save family farms' or help family farmers?

Large farms are a "rational and ethical" response to market demands, he said. His family has farmed there for six generations, Phipps himself for the past three decades. He owns 800 acres outright or with his siblings and rents 1,000 acres. His wife is his main helper and drives one of the trucks that haul up to 700 bushels of corn per load to grain bins. "Imagine that: Two middle-aged people able to farm 1,800 acres," Phipps marveled. "That's all because of the immense technology we have at our hands. We are horrendously efficient." <.>

"Farming is a science now," he said. "The image of a farmer in bib overalls bumbling along is just wrong. I'm an engineer, for God's sake." <.>

Phipps resents the images used to evoke sympathy for farmers. "I think they do us more harm than good," he said as he scrambled to finish his harvest. "I don't think farmers are any more special than anyone else; lots of people work hard and don't get help. Why should farmers get special treatment?"

Here is a sort of Hodgepodge collection of stories on backlog that compliment and have thus been added to various post groupings:

Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.

Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."

Soviet liberation of women may have been grand and radical, but it was imposed from above by brutal force and was therefore deeply inhuman. Of course, compared to forced industrialization and collectivization, liberation of women was benign. It did not cost millions of human lives. But the results of gender equality inflicted by the state are inevitably quite different from women's rights secured by generations of public activism.

Parents are being forced to pay thousands of pounds for braces for their children's teeth after the Government slashed the number of youngsters eligible for free treatment.

Rationing of orthodontic treatment means more than 7,000 children and teenagers with crooked teeth are being turned down for braces and other corrective dental work each month, orthodontists have warned.

Many have no option but to go private - a path that costs their parents up to £4,500 for a set of braces.

This means that around 85,000 of the 420,000 patients treated each year will be turned away. Most will be children and teenagers.

Chris Kettler, executive secretary of the British Orthodontic Society said: 'More than 20 per cent of children who would have been treated under the NHS cannot be now. We need more funding.'

More funding? The system is broken from the bottom up, or better said, top down. :)

The shake-up, designed to boost the number of people entitled to dentistry on the NHS, has led to restrictions on the orthodontic work carried out by dentists, increasing the pressure on orthodontic specialists.

How can this be? A plan designed to increase access reduced access? Careful students of government will recognize this bizarre outcome as entirely predictable.

U.S. public schools should be run by private contractors who would graduate most students by 10th grade, concluded an expert commission sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

While I've been critical, perhaps unfairly because after all it's their money, of aspects of the Gates' charitable foundation in the past here at neoperspectives.com (as they don't seem to place heavy focus on the underlying political and economic roots of poverty, disease, and suffering), this recent proposal is quite interesting. The seriousness with which this analysis and proposal is being taken says volumes about the shifting debate and sentiment towards public 'education' and, if we're lucky, 'public' institutions in general. :)

The plan faces opposition from teacher unions, which expressed concern about the proposal to hand operations over to private contractors, and to shift the structure of teacher retirement pay.

The nation's largest teachers union, the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, said that recommendations such as state funding and private control of schools ``could potentially disenfranchise poorer communities and eliminate community voices.''

Of course, the opposite is true, and feel free to extrapolate this contradiction to policy areas beyond education:

The Education Trust, a Washington-based research and advocacy group, released a state-by-state analysis yesterday concluding that U.S. school funding policies leave poor and minority students with the worst schools, including less- qualified teachers and less-demanding curriculum.

The plan also calls for state funding to replace local property taxes, free pre-kindergarten and higher teacher pay on a merit-based system. The Gates Foundation and other sponsoring groups may pay states to help implement it, organizers said.

This is interesting because in the United States conditions exist that enable a private entity to create enough wealth, through rugged free market capitalism, or something close to it, to influence and shoulder massive costs normally paid by taxpayers. How much more productive is the genius of creative and caring individuals than that of government? Think of all the taxes government has taken from Gates and Microsoft over his lifetime. And for what? What does government actually accomplish with our tax money? Well, they do a good job supporting the Unions whose members have their dues forcibly returned to the very politicians that orchestrated the original theft. Gates and Co and the rest of us are plenty capable of running day to day functions we somehow believe can only be suited to government. In fact, we could easily perform the current (unconstitutional) 'jobs' of government and still have spending money leftover; provided they'd let us keep our own $$$, abolish existing institutions, and keep the heck outta our way!

Despite an intensified campaign against poverty, World Bank programs have failed to lift incomes in many poor countries over the past decade, leaving tens of millions of people suffering stagnating and even declining living standards, according to a report released Thursday by the bank's autonomous assessment arm.

Just like much of Western foreign aid and charitable aid, the 'aid' the World Bank seeks to deliver is not having the desired effect because handouts or policies promoting government largeness do not address the root of the problem of poverty in the world. Poverty exists because poor countries are run by criminals and have large, expansive, and intrusive governments.

Overall, between 1990 and 2002 the percentage of the world's people who subsist on less than one dollar per day declined from 28 percent to 19 percent, according to World Bank research. But officials with the evaluation group noted that much of the advance was registered in China, which has rejected many of the tenets of the development model advocated by the West while relying hardly at all on the largesse of the World Bank.

But isn't the opposite true? China has raised millions of people out of poverty by moving away from communism and socialism and embracing Western free market concepts.

Some of the report reads like an amalgam of the sorts of criticisms that have been leveled against the World Bank for years by activists who accuse it of an ideological bias toward market reforms and a callous disregard for the people bearing the brunt of such policies. The report chides the bank for failing to help cushion poor people against price and currency liberalizations; for focusing on the fiscal sustainability of pension systems to the deriment of the poor; for promoting the privatization of power industries without thinking enough about wiring up the indigent.

It criticizes the bank for failing to tailor projects to local conditions, and for sometimes attempting to accomplish more than national governments can handle. In the most striking example, the report noted that in Uganda the bank assisted the government with an ambitious effort to increase school enrollments, but failed to plan for sufficient teacher hiring or classroom construction.

Of course, the opposite is true! The World Bank's promotion of expanding health and education, increasing the power of the already large government (we know it is large because the country is poor) can only be unhelpful. The World Bank's focus on the things the activists claim don't go far enough is likely the reason for their failure.

Torcetrapib was pulled from studies involving 15,000 heart patients nationwide. Half took Lipitor alone; the rest took Lipitor and the trial drug. On Saturday, Pfizer announced that an independent monitor found instances of high blood pressure among the patients taking the combination. More alarming, the death rate differed: The two-drug group recorded 82 fatalities, while the Lipitor group recorded 51.

What about those who took Torcetrapib alone? Have any studies been done on this? What about individuals within the studies? Did those who died share any commonalities? Individuals react very differently to medications and diseases manifest differently in different individuals. The future of medicine lies in individual treatment using genetics and/or clinical experience, a future not yet embraced by those in government, notably the FDA. In fact, even today, many medications are prescribed on a trial and error basis. Side effects may be intolerable, or results dismal, in a subset of patients and so a different class(es) is then tried. While it may be the case drugs are often thrown at patients and may, upon occasion, do more harm then good, it is also true that they can literally be lifesavers if applied correctly.

My purpose in raising these points is that, IMO, torcetrapib should be available for docs to prescribe and for further studies to be done, and for patients with no other options, or otherwise, to try if they so choose. The reason it will not be available is not because there are not customers, or docs who were excited about aspects of this drug, especially in certain subsets of patients, but because of government. The company is forced to shield itself from predatory trial lawyers and more importantly, the unconstitutional FDA.

The cost of developing torcetrapib, reported in various news stories as between $800 million and nearly $1 billion, goes a long way toward explaining the high prices of prescription drugs with no generic competition. The pharmaceutical companies often invest astronomical sums on research, development and testing to bring a drug to market. And many drugs in development fail -- often after a fortune has been spent on them.

But it's also a bitter setback for the company and its shareholders. On Monday, Pfizer's stock fell nearly 11 percent -- a $21 billion reduction in the stock's market value, according to The New York Times.

But the news underscores the importance of small pharmaceutical companies and other biotech concerns that continue to take risks to develop promising drug therapies.

It is incredible how much money is spent on these trials and developments. Much of this is due to the onerous regulations of the FDA and worries about legal liabilities. Yet, we always hear our friends on the left criticize 'big pharm', when they are the ones saving lives, in spite of government. Amazing that they are able to do it.

However, I would be negligent in this analysis :) if I did not spend some time attacking the vast amounts of money government gives to fund so-called 'academic' research. The best and most relevant research is done by private companies, who employ the best researchers and most visionary scientists. Private companies, especially pharm companies, have large volumes of private unpublished research and databases that would, perhaps, this is just an inference, put academia to shame. Why not take the money thrown at University profs for who knows what various research grants and give it as tax breaks to the drug companies? Even better, don't collect the money from them to begin with. :)

Ottawa, ON –According to an Ipsos Reid survey among the general public, a majority of Canadian adults rank a patient wait times guarantee as more important than any other of the Government’s priorities. Of the five policy promises made by the Government of Canada during the last federal election, 42% of Canadians said that “a patient wait time guarantee that would reduce wait times for key health services” was the most important to them personally. This compares to lowering taxes (19%), restoring accountability to Ottawa (14%), tackling crime (14%), and implementing a choice in childcare program (9%).

Pretty interesting survey, and indicative of the problems inherent in socialized medicine. The only snag is that the government cannot lower wait times lists because government creates them! How can the problem create the solution? Also of interest is that lowering taxes is second on the list. Restoring accountability, sort of general, but as Ron Paul so eloquently opinioned, best done by shrinking the power and influence of government officials. The last issue, implementing choice in childcare programs, is a Canadian issue I am not familiar with, but it sounds like some unions in Canada have a monopoly on where parents' tax money is spent, just like they have here in the United States with our public skrewls. :)

So, Canadians seem to have their heads on strait. :) My only disagreement with them is that 74% "trust the CMA (Canadian Medical Association) to do what is best for the patients". I don't share their optimism. Doctor organizations represent doctors, not patients.

Saudi Arabia has given Britain 10 days to halt a fraud investigation into the country's arms trade - or lose a £10 billion Eurofighter contract.

The contract supports up to 50,000 British jobs and there are now fears that the deal may go to France.

The Saudi government is on the verge of cancelling the contract - an extension of one brokered by Margaret Thatcher 20 year ago - because of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations of a slush fund for members of the Saudi royal family, according to authoritative sources.

The Saudis are said to be "outraged" by the probe into the activities of companies linked to BAE Systems. The investigation concerns alleged illegal payments made to members of the Saudi royal family and their agents.

When it comes to the Saudi-American relationship, the White House should be called the ‘White Tent.'" - Mohammed Al-Khilewi, a Saudi diplomat who defected to the United States

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, helpfully hinted at an answer in a statement boasting of his success cultivating powerful Americans. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office", Bandar once observed, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."[35] This effective admission of bribery goes far to explain why the usual laws, regulations and rights do not apply when Saudi Arabia is involved. <.>

Several surveys of the post-government careers of ex-U.S. ambassadors to Riyadh all raise eyebrows. Steven Emerson characterizes their behavior as "visceral, overt self-interested sycophancy."[37] National Review finds that the number of them "who now push a pro-Saudi line is startling" and concludes that "no other posting pays such rich dividends once one has left it, provided one is willing to become a public and private advocate of Saudi interests."[38] A National Post analysis looked at five former ambassadors and found that "they have carved out a fine living insulting their own countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth." If you closed your eyes while listening to their apologies, "you would think the person talking held a Saudi passport."[39]

A Washington Post account gives some idea of the nature of the "rich dividends" reaped by former officials:

Americans who have worked with the Saudis in official capacities often remain connected to them when they leave public office, from former president George H.W. Bush, who has given speeches for cash in Saudi Arabia since leaving office, to many previous ambassadors and military officers stationed in the Kingdom. In some cases, these connections have been lucrative. Walter Cutler, who served two tours as the U.S. ambassador in Saudi Arabia, now runs Meridian International Center in Washington, an organization that promotes international understanding through education and exchanges. Saudi donors have been "very supportive" of the center, Cutler said. [Edward] Walker, the former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, is president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, which promotes understanding with the Arab world. Its board chairman is former senator Wyche Fowler, ambassador to Riyadh in the second Clinton administration. Saudi contributions covered $200,000 of the institute's $1.5 million budget last year, Walker said.[40]

Nor is this a new problem. Many ex-Washington hands have been paid off by the Kingdom, including not only a bevy of former ambassadors but also such figures as Spiro T. Agnew, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John B. Connally and William E. Simon.[41]

Some interesting thoughts from Bangert over at the Three Legged Stool on Senator Barney Frank.

Democrats, who control the Indiana House, want to eliminate the state's sales tax on gasoline.

Republicans say exempting gasoline from the state's six percent sales tax could cost the state as much as $300 million a year. And, it would only save drivers a few cents at a time.

Four of the sick patients had approached Johns Hopkins with a relative who was willing to donate a kidney but was an incompatible donor. The fifth patient had been on a waiting list for a kidney from a dead person.

Together, those nine people and an "altruistic donor" -- someone willing to give a kidney to anyone who needed it -- had enough matched kidneys among them to pull off a complex, five-way swap.

Once the swap was agreed to, the transplants were done all at the same time to prevent anyone from backing out later or in case someone fell ill.

Dr. Robert Montgomery, director of Hopkins' transplant center and head of the transplant team, pronounced the interlocking deal "a demonstration to the rest of the country that this is what's possible when people work together."

What an amazing thing. Different and disparate people coming together to make capitalistic trades that benefit all parties. Shouldn't we applaud the dedication and innovation of these folks and the docs at Hopkins?

Montgomery called for a national kidney-swap program, saying it could help ease the shortage of transplant organs and cut costs by getting people off dialysis. He said 6,000 people on the waiting list for a kidney from a dead person have a willing but incompatible donor.

He noted, however, that live-donor kidney swaps present ethical problems for some institutions since federal law prohibits receiving something of value in exchange for an organ. Some institutions feel multiple arrangements come uncomfortably close to quid pro quo, Montgomery said. He called for a clarification of the law.

Obviously, something of value was given for each organ, namely another organ. It was clearly a quid pro quo and thus each of these people are in blatant violation of the law. You cannot, legally, pay someone for an organ either. IMO, it seems clear that the current laws regarding organ donation are killing large numbers of US citizens each year.

Yet, freedom never seems to be the answer we hear from politicians and even most transplant specialists (unlike these brave folks at Hopkins).

I've attended a few conferences on the subject and most of the synopsis dance around ideas like the European 'presumed consent' whereby unless you specifically object to having your organs harvested, they are. I find this governmental claim on your physical body, the last vestige of self ownership and property rather repulsive. I listened to a prominent transplant doc from California opine the principle problem was that donated organs are just going to the 'wrong' people. That if only he could 'play god' and determine who lived and died, there would be a much better overall societal outcome. 'Course he didn't say it quite like that. :)

Lao Tse said that the evil leader is the one whom the people despise, the good leader is the one whom the people revere, but the greatest leader of all is the one who causes the people to cheer that "we did it ourselves".

Why not give freedom a chance? We, as in 'we the people', are perfectly capable of mixing our own self interest and intrinsic altruism to fashion an excellent organ transplant system, meeting the needs of every citizen. And then we could cheer that we 'did it ourselves'.

Two unrelated previously posted stories will be added to 'Required Reading' because for whatever reason I keep referencing, emailing, and posting them and it's a pain to keep finding them :) :

In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces.

We wrote extensively about this during the 2004 election. Some retrospective reading for context may be in order. Another good opportunity to quote the late Milton Friedman

Rest in Peace Milton Friedman. I am thankful that you lived a long, influential life and were able to teach the world so much. Some quotes courtesy of www.brainyquote.com:

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

"Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned."

"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."

"I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."

"I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal."

"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."

"Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless."

"The black market was a way of getting around government controls. It was a way of enabling the free market to work. It was a way of opening up, enabling people."

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

"The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy."

"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."

"The most important ways in which I think the Internet will affect the big issue is that it will make it more difficult for government to collect taxes."

"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom."

"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system."

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. "

"We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work."

As you know, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has resigned. We've gotten a large upswing in hits to 'The Best of Donald Rumsfeld', and this piece will be added to it.

Quote Page Update! Some have been removed, in order to make way for the the following quote additions:

[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Russel Roberts
American companies make good fighter planes and bombers, but the government chooses the path that innovations take. This public-private cooperation works pretty well when your competitors are other governments designing and building fighter planes. It would be disastrous in medicine, where we are trying to outrun the angel of death.

To blame the military for war makes about as much sense as suggesting that we get rid of cancer by getting rid of doctors.

Shaye Carter and Janie Lewis each risked a $300 fine yesterday because they had refused to withdraw their children from Career Connections Charter Middle School and enroll them in Pittsburgh Public Schools.

"I'm more concerned about my child's education," Ms. Carter said of daughter, Ria, a seventh-grader.

Pittsburgh parents said they're standing their ground because they've found a good thing. They said the school's curriculum, small class sizes and welcoming environment are improvements over regular Pittsburgh schools.

A great analysis and poll of competitive congressional districts, which mirrors the previously posted CNN poll.

"I hate to admit it, I'm optimistic about the Nov 7th elections and don't particularly care who wins."

Those were the words I wrote yesterday as I began to write a lengthy commentary on the coming midterm elections. However, since I didn't get the piece finished, it is now obsolete, but the gist remains the same, despite the fact that the Democrats have apparently won the House and possibly the Senate. The reason for my optimism is simple; I do not support the Republican party, I support what the Republican party supposedly stood for. When the Republican party ceases to stand for what it supposedly represents; it makes little sense to support them. Case in point:

How did we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today — from passing welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and same-sex marriage?

The answer is simple: Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now, the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect — and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Despite controlling both houses of Congress and the presidency Republicans have given us record domestic spending and have not even made token attempts to reign in out of control government programs. They have lorded over an unprecedented rise in earmarks, pork barrel spending, and the corruption resulting from an expanded out of control one party government, Republican or not. Despite inherent misgivings, the phrase, 'throw the bums out' does have a nice ring to it. As Thomas Jefferson said, "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Perhaps this truism is applicable to the big spenders in the house of representatives, especially when you consider who will be replacing them:

    To make a successful play for House control, Democrats have to win in Republican districts. But voter surveys consistently show that the national Democratic Party's liberal positions on taxes, abortion and other issues do not go down well in districts that supported Mr. Bush by 10 percentage points or more.
    Therefore, the Democrats have recruited two types of candidates: those who often sound like their Republican opponents on abortion, guns, homeland security or taxes -- and those who simply don't talk much at all.
    "It took 12 years in the minority for Democrats to realize that they couldn't win elections by running like Democrats -- so they've drafted candidates who either masquerade as conservatives or keep mum on the issues as long as politically possible," Mr. Collegio said.

"If Democrats make headway this cycle, it's not because America has moved leftward, but because Democrat candidates have moved rightward," Mr. Collegio said.

In fact, Nancy Pelosi, now Majority leader for the Democrats in Congress campaigned on a platform of, among other things, cutting taxes!

10/5/06 Townhall
Pointing toward midterm elections, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi promises to raise the minimum wage while cutting taxes to spur economic growth and help the middle class. <.>

"If there was any evidence that campaign season is in full swing, it's Nancy Pelosi's epiphany that tax cuts spur economic growth after years of leading the charge in tax hikes on American workers," said Tracey Schmitt, a Republican Party spokeswoman.

Democrats are going to cut taxes? We'll see. If they don't, in two more years we can 'throw the bums out' again!

Republican attempts at 'triangulation', their reliance on political advisors, and their ideologically bankrupt ideas like the bloated Medicare bill have failed. Americans don't want big government. They don't want corrupt government, they want good government, and good government is limited government. Americans want to be free:

A quarter century after the Reagan revolution and a dozen years after Republicans vaulted into control of Congress, a new CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."

The poll released Friday also showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans perceive, correctly, that the size and cost of government have gone up in the past four years, when Republicans have had a grip on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.

Discretionary spending grew from $649 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $968 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $319 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country's problems.

When asked if the size of the federal government has increased in the past four years, 72 percent said it had, and 86 percent said they thought federal spending had gone up during the same period. Those questions have a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.

But most importantly, the old media, the liberal media, the biased agenda driven media continues to loose its stranglehold on the American populace. While newspapers in general are loosing marketshare, Conservative leaning papers are bucking the trend. The Internet is increasingly being utilized by Conservatives and, especially, the ever active Libertarian leaning folks, shining light on the practices of those in government and turning the heat on our corrupt and criminal congresscritters. Ron Paul, (R, TX) a libertarian minded representative is fast becoming an internet icon on relatively bipartisan and youthful sites like Digg.com, as well as the conservative stronghold freerepublic.com.

The Internet, and the resultant freedom of information is changing the political landscape. Conservatism/Libertarianism ideas are multiplying and seeping into mainstream discourse. Those who oppose government, those who would 'throw the bums out' any chance they get, are growing in number. We stick to principle over party, prefer gridlock over power consolidation, and value freedom above all else. Democrats beware, our patience wears thin fast. We are on the march and your turn is next.

The State is not endorsing Mark Sanford for governor of South Carolina this time around:

Trouble is, he did have a vision: He didn’t want government to be more effective as much as he wanted it to be cheaper. It was about tax cuts and privatizing everything he could, including public education. He had proposed moderate versions of these concepts as a candidate: phasing out the income tax while raising the gasoline tax; providing vouchers for a very few of the most disadvantaged kids. We opposed those things, and said so, but they were no big deal.

After he got into office, his tax position morphed over time into just cut a tax, any tax. Eventually, his anti-government rhetoric became far from moderate.

He had run as a conservative, but he wasn’t that. He was as close to an ideologically pure libertarian as you can get. You can’t be a conservative and a radical at the same time. And folks, it doesn’t get more radical than his veto of the entire state budget. <.>

Why attack the public schools? Because that’s where state government spends the most tax money, and that makes public education a deeply offensive institution to the extremists. Why did the governor not even condemn their most extreme attacks on our public schools as a “failed monopoly”? Because he agreed with them.

Heh heh.. I can't think of a more ringing endorsement of Governor Sanford. :) This is the same guy who unleashed live pigs in the state capitol, making fun of the porkbarreling politicians in the SC State House and Senate. Go Governor!

A 57-year-old man who was shot and killed by his 14-year-old hostage Monday at a home on Ocean Drive had been released from jail Friday and had committed several other burglaries, including a similar home invasion, according to police and court records.

Here at Neoperspectives, Travis and I HEART Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the world, allowing people to earn money, while offering low-cost products which lowers shoppers' spending and makes people richer. But now, they're going too far! They're going GREEN!

Wal-Mart yesterday announced the online rollout of a "green" rating system for the packaging used by all of its product suppliers, one that will eventually determine who can sell to the world's largest retailer. About 2,000 private label suppliers to Wal-Mart began imputing data on the packaging they use for their products into the groundbreaking system yesterday. The creation of the packaging rating system is a significant part of the bid by the retailer to become more environmentally-friendly and meet the demands of its customers.

Now, when I buy low-cost Fruit Loops I will be creating wealth for Americans AND helping the environment. But, how can Wal-Mart get their suppliers to be more green?

Wal-Mart is selling the program to the suppliers, who will have no option but to comply,

Wal-Mart is a private company where people freely choose to work. Sometimes employees come in late, which is bad for business. So, Wal-Mart unveiled a new system to punish tardy employees. Too many lates equals no job. Seems reasonable.

It’s all part of a revised attendance policy implemented this fall that makes Wal-Mart Stores Inc. hourly workers more accountable for excessive unexcused absences and formalizes such penalties.

WakeUpWalmart.com plans its first national conference call with Wal-Mart employees and civil rights leaders today to discuss the latest moves, as well as other recent labor changes.

Civil rights leaders. WakeUpWalmart. What? Well, I'm still buying low-cost Fruit Loops there. I hope the employees in Ft Walton Beach show up on time, like you're supposed to.

1967. The summer of love. The Beatles and Sgt Pepper. The Grateful Dead in its infancy. Jim Morrison had only taken his one thousandth hit of acid. But let's be honest. Financially, we're better off now then our grandparents were. (Speaking in Generation X terms.)

As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7:46 a.m. Tuesday (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the typical family is doing a whole lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.

In any society, if property rights are established, equality exists, and capitalism is flowing, as the population increases, money for everybody increases. So, more people equals more money.

Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.

And what has stopped the American people from even more gains in wealth? Progressive taxes, high corporate tax rates, pork spending, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, Medicare increases, prescription drug benefit increases, eminent domain abuse, subsidies for farmers, subsidies for big companies, subsidies for education, department of education spending explosion, etc etc

We've had a record month this month here at neoperspectives.com. With 6,217 unique visitors and 88,456 hits during the month of October, we're truckin' ahead at full speed! We have a number of ideas to improve the site we'll be working on and implementing ASAP. There are so many exciting projects we are behind schedule on, it's not even funny. I'm kidding, it is funny. :) As always, we're also looking for contributors of quality content or technical expertise. Thanks to all our readers!

Well, I haven't heard much about end of times catastrophe stemming from human industrialization in at least a couple weeks, so this article is way overdue.

Britain warned Monday that failure to act swiftly on global warming will have a cataclysmic effect on the global economy, and said it was stepping up efforts to get other nations involved.

A long-awaited report predicted apocalyptic effects from climate change, including droughts, flooding, famine, skyrocketing malaria rates and the extinction of many animal species. These will happen during the current generation if changes are not made soon, the report said.

Oh no! Sometime in this generation! Well, then, chop-chop, let's get to it. But wait a minute, I'm sure this is just some hogwash from some yahoo scientists, right?

"This disaster is not set to happen in some science-fiction future, many years ahead, but in our lifetime," Blair said. "What is more, unless we act now, not some time distant but now, these consequences, disastrous as they are, will be irreversible."

Tony Blair! Well then, this is much more mainstream than I thought. But, really, I am just trying to figure out what I, and we Americans can do.

This emphasis seems aimed at the few industrial nations, including the United States, that have refused to sign up to initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol, citing economic reasons.

Challenge, yes, yes. Other than the Kyoto Protocol, which luckily for Americans, smart people have dismissed, what other ways can we act?

Britain intends that "the report should be discussed as widely as possible throughout the world - not just among governments but among international institutions, business leaders, NGOs and civil society," Brown said. He also said he had appointed the former U.S. vice president Al Gore as an adviser on environmental issues.

Discussion. That's it. Let's do some talking. Al Gore, eh? He can certainly provide some great discourse. I'm sure it will be non-partisan, and with the best interest of science in mind. Okay, so first we sign the Kyoto Protocol, and then we have discussions led by Al Gore. Great solution mate.

I can think of nowhere more exciting to pitch a tent than at the crossroads of politics, philosophy, science, and spirituality. This is sort of an eccentric way to begin an essay, but the endless seagueways present at this intersection increasingly beg delving into. The excitement is derived from a mix of personal topical interest, the pioneering rush of novelty creation, and the possibility of capturing and defining a net (as in internet) subspecialty.

Libertarian philosophy rotates around the central plank of self ownership, which ironically contrasts with the more Conservative slogan of 'personal responsibility'. Thus, you own your physical body, the property you produce with it, and answer to God, not government, for your actions and choices, the product of which advances your own understanding, knowledge, and morality. This coincides with the premise that free will exists and that the purpose of it, as well as the key to happiness, is self improvement.

Political positions arise from the former, if not the latter, premise, yielding the recognizable platforms of economic and personal freedom. However, if we can enjoy and are responsible for our economic and social successes and failures, are we not also equally responsible for our life experience? Indeed, it is arguable that an understanding of what drives the consciousness of our life experience is more important than embroiling oneself in the more tempting political discoveries. In fact, although concurrent progress and travel in either direction is certainly possible, as the underlying patterns are complementary, we might retrospectively :) advise a 'mental starting point'.

The tenant of this starting point is simple: no one makes you feel a certain way, no one besides yourself is responsible for your thoughts and emotions, and no event need enlighten you, one way or the other, with an involuntary emotional experience. We view the universe through our own conscious experience; it is entirely subjective. Like the political plank, this starting point is not deemed truly radical until its application, but, then again, consensus of common culture never was worth its weight in empirical value.

The easiest example is one without any other actors. Tonight I was writing a very long (pages) email to a friend (hi Libby!) when my gmail timed out and I lost nearly all of it. As you can easily imagine, I felt the surges of anger and frustration. But these feelings were not caused by the event; they came from within me; the event itself had no qualities other than those my internal computer, pardon the pun, assigned to it. And these aren't pleasant feelings. Ever see a happy angry person? :) Interestingly, I didn't 'choose' to feel this certain way; I just felt it. Actually, I had no control over it whatsoever. Pretty scary when you stop and think about it. No control over your feelings? What is your everyday experience but a product of your feelings? From whence do thoughts most often arise? Forget all the property government steals from us and all their asinine rules and regulations which conform and restrict us - we don't even control our very lives! How can we work on getting those in government off our backs when we're stomped into the dirt by our own boots? Do you see why the event itself, the email deletion, is more or less irrelevant? The important thing is my erroneous response. This response will continue to occur throughout my life until I recognize it for what it is, a qualitatively demonstrable flaw within myself. Negative emotional expressions are neither the 'natural' or ideal state of things. Turn it on itself; anger and frustration at the anger and frustration is an important first step. :)

In the same sense, when you become angry at someone else, they did not cause you to be angry; no one can make you angry besides yourself. Again, the anger you feel is really reflective of manifest imperfections within oneself. Most religions give at least lip service to this idea; eastern spiritual teachings label such persons, the ones who expose the flaws within us yielding anger or other unpleasant emotions, as 'Gems'. Gems because, how glad are we to have met these precious people who allow us to uncover previously undiagnosed defects simmering within? This, IMHO, is the proper perspective, any negative emotion or thought is not caused by anyone but yourself and before positive change can occur, along with increased happiness, you must take full responsibility for it. This is not to say we need to behave hedonistically, or even sadistically, although this is where some Buddhist traditions of viewing disgusting images of decapitations or rotting bodies stems from, as do the more Christian flagellations of self inflected pain and punishment. Probably the best is a sort of middle path, a 'razors edge', a pattern which is remarkable in its consistent emergence.

The idea that someone 'made us feel a certain way' is just as erroneously comforting as the jealous indignation towards people who happen to be wealthier than us, an emotion which is taken advantage of by the classwarfarests, notably our friends on the left. This is especially prevalent in the black community, where, upon occasion, charges of racism and economic slavery take center stage, to the occlusion of a more positive individualistically advansive agenda. Is it ever justifiable to be angry when someone acts racist towards you? What benefit could possibly come from it? Similarly, the constant outrage some Muslims profess over the insulting of the prophet Mohammad, is reflective of their own insecurities and flawed worldviews, as, of course, is outrage to the outrage :). How often do these 'political temper tantrums' take place in the media today? Someone says something and reporters call up any 'group' they think will be 'offended' or 'outraged', but the offence or outrage of the responding organization reflects only reversibly, and if anything adds false legitimacy to the provocateurs.

Let's take this a few steps further; a spouse or significant other is not responsible for your love towards them, you are. After all, who is doing the feeling? The smile on your face when your dog welcomes you home does not come from the dog; it was within you the entire time. It had to be, or you wouldn't have felt it! A certain situation did not 'bring out the best in you'; you brought out the best in yourself. Like a computer program, the output depends not on the input, but on the internal processing. Focusing on positively changing the internal processing, making the output better regardless of input, is the laudable goal. Only then will we truly be free.

There are a couple caveats which accompany this theory. The first is that, yes, input can affect the internal programming, particularly when we are growing up and our capacity for free will is slim to nonexistent. Yet, even if one is born with or develops defective software, it is still advantageous to consider it as it is, without comparison to others, and begin to attempt the long process of reprogramming, rather than chasing or blaming outside stimulus, as this is not only unproductive, it is the definition of blindness. Admittedly, in a previous post I discussed the benefits of a positive environment, putting oneself in a situation where positive energy exists and some level of self realization is facilitated. Is this a contradiction? I'd argue it is not, as the choice to seek out a positive environment still requires some sort of humility and self analysis.

Now, imagine if a government existed, which, in its innate humility, developed policies fostering a positive environment for all the citizens and nurtured and cherished them in such a loving and parenting way, creating so much positive energy that they all were liberated from their minds and lived happily ever after. While liberals and some social conservatives may dream of such a utopia, it can never be. Inevitably, their grand plans are doomed to failure. Morality and self improvement must be chosen and recognized independently. A life without challenge, bumps, and bruises is not a life at all as no self knowledge can be gained. We are better for our struggles, and government must leave us free to struggle, provided we don't struggle over the lives and property of others.

A true utopia is where every imaginable vice is available, legal, and plentiful, but yet, the people, and by 'the people' I mean each individual person, chooses, volitionally, without the coercion of government, not to partake in these deviations because they are enlightened as to the nature of themselves and are deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions. Sort of like the Communists, the laudable goals of these do-gooders are achievable, if only they would look over their shoulders, turn about face, and march back whence they came.

Connecticut certainly has its share of antismoking moonbats, but they seem almost sane compared with the smoke-free powers that be in Omaha, Neb. The city banned smoking in public on Oct. 2. Penalties are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second and $500 for the third and subsequent infractions.

Imagine for a second, a World War II Veteran, returning home from defeating Nazism and the spread of Totalitarianism. He sits down at an empty table in a restaurant that his buddy owns. His buddy owns the property. His buddy used his own money, and even some of his own sweat, building the restaurant. The restaurant is open to the public, that is, anyone that wants to come in, out of their own free will. Nobody is forced to enter the building, which I remind you, is owned and operated by a private citizen. The World War II vet is sitting, relaxing, and enjoying his freedom. He lights a cigarette. In Omaha, Nebraska, He's a criminal.

Unbelievable. But even MORE unbelievable, is the fact that if he were sitting in Omaha, Nebraska, the government there would urge his friends, whom he had just got done risking his life for, to call 911 and turn the criminal in!

It's like "any other crime that happens in any city. If somebody sees a crime happen, they can call 911 and report it," and an officer will be dispatched, a police spokeswoman told an interviewer.

In a couple of weeks, American citizens get to vote for either Big Government Republicans or Big Government Democrats. The way I see it, Big Government Democrats will limit your freedom with money, and Big Government Republicans will limit your freedom with personal choices. A perfect example, is the Governor race in Florida. This morning while I was driving to work I had the displeasure of hearing a political ad for Charlie Crist, the Republican candidate for Governor. One of his elect-me talking points was his "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the Florida Constitution. The amendment will not allow two human beings to enter into a contract that our land of the free should allow.

According to Linn, during the course of conversations with Crist he learned that the future attorney general is gay. The two talked about "what would happen if [Crist’s sexual orientation] comes out" during a political campaign, Linn said. Linn kept quiet about Crist’s supposed gay secret for more than 20 years until he launched his third-party bid for governor. Then, on Oct. 11, National Coming Out Day, Linn outed Crist on WFTL, a South Florida radio show.

Crist has repeatedly denied rumors that he is gay. When Miami radio host Jim DeFede asked Crist if he is gay in July, Crist responded, "The point is, I’m not. There’s the answer. How do you like it? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as they say on Seinfeld. But I just happen not to be."

Not that there's anything wrong with it? Why then Charlie, if there is nothing wrong with it, does the government have to impose itself on two citizen's lives?

Runaway democracy is not a solution to corrupt politicians. Education of the people by and for themselves seems the only solution.

Freedom will advance only when people stop laughing and loving speeches like this one by the little better than common criminal Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV), and instead elect officials with a different attitude:

"There are two different sorts of philosophies of government at work here. First is that West Virginia is not capable of taking care of itself, so we have to funnel millions of dollars a year here from the federal government. The other philosophy is that West Virginians are talented and hardworking, and they do not have to be dependent on Big Brother or Big Daddy."

A pretty disgusting story about government's attempts to force welfare on populations. Luckily, the Amish value liberty and understand the harm and cultural destruction which follows government 'help'.

However, president Bush, a 'conservative' president, doesn't seem to understand this:

President Bush has almost doubled the percentage of US foreign-aid dollars going to faith-based groups such as Food for the Hungry, according to a Globe survey of government data.

    If you suspect Plett is guilty of a very serious crime, guess again. She was arrested and thrown in prison for homeschooling her children.
    Homeschooling, along with any educational institution other than state-run schools, was outlawed by Adolf Hitler in 1938. But a recent decline, both academically and morally, in the country’s public school system has more and more German parents looking for better ways to educate their children.
The Konrads contended that Germany’s compulsory school attendance laws were a violation of their human rights.
    The human rights court ruled: “Parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions,” adding that the right to education “by its very nature calls for regulation by the state.”
(Added to 'Homeschooling Articles')

"The most common question I get is, 'When are we going to run out of oil?' The correct response is, 'Never,'" said Cheney.

For instance, oil deposits unreachable 40 years ago can be tapped using improved technology, and oil once too costly to extract from tar sands, organic matter or coal is now worth manufacturing.

This is true, but opinion to the contrary remains widespread, especially amongst our friends on the left who seem to believe resources are finite and that human population growth and advancement is unsustainable. However, if one looks at the record, they've been wrong on all counts:

By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07.

Finally, on a more personal level, one cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that it is possible, although perhaps not politically correct, to be an extremely moral person and accomplish great good without giving a cent to charity or spending a second volunteering. This is not to be critical or disdainful of these activities, but merely encourage cost-benefits analysis, which often appear to be sorely lacking, especially when the acting entities are NGOs, Hollywood actors, 'rockstars' like Bono, or government itself.

I want to expand upon this idea by examining an absolutely amazing story that appeared in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal. The story (which I did not provide a link to, because I realized that WSJ stories are only available to subscribers - so I typed selected quotes out of it for purposes of this post) details China's richest private citizen's rise to power. This man is Dr. Shi. The story begins with a quick summary of his inspiring life:

A doctorate, several patents, two solar-power companies, and a $455 million initial public offering later, Dr. Shi is now one of the richest people in China.

Naturally, as a Neoperspectives co-dictator, it was Dr. Shi's battle against government entities that sparked my interest in this story.

The story of his journey from China to Australia and back shows how important China's growing openness has become to its people.

Note the reference to China's "growing openness"... So, before we examine the idea of wealth building vs. philanthropy, let me say a few words about this story and examine government power over individuals choosing work.

Although the Chinese government is a force of oppression, depriving nearly a billion people of liberty and prosperity, it is very encouraging to read about the recent forces of change that have been going on there, over the past ten years or so. This force of change can be compared with the Invisible Hand Adam Smith spoke of that accompanies liberalization of marketplaces. What has this Invisible Hand of more "openness" and "liberalized economic policy" given the Chinese people? Prosperity.

There are now probably 320,000 U.S.-dollar millionaires in China according to estimates by Merrill Lynch and CapGemini, and many of them are newly minted...nearly one-third appeared on the list for the first time this year - including Dr. Shi. He debuted this year at No. 1.

Very recently, in China, almost no citizens had the chance to pursue their own interest in choosing a job or career, or even course of study.

I got into the solar industry, in the beginning, by accident," says Dr. Shi. The forty-three year old came of age in China at a time when the government controlled where people worked and lived. "In our generation, we didn't have the freedom to choose. We just accept whatever we are given. So, it's hard to plan," he says.

I remember growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, listening to Guns n Roses, and changing my mind almost weekly about whether I was going to be a fireman, or a doctor, or pro body-boarder when I grew up. Imagine, for a second, having no choice whatsoever. So one wonders how it was that Dr. Shi. was able to escape the grips of oppression. Simple. He was very smart.

His high scores in math and physics got him slotted into the optical science department at Jilin University, in China's chilly northeast. He found working in a lab preferable to working in the fields.

Since he was smart enough, and deemed "valuable" by the totalitarian government of China, the decision was made to improve his worth to the common Chinese interest. (Read: the common Chinese interest is for the status quo to be maintained and the totalitarian regime of power to continue)

After graduation in 1983, he entered a master's program at the Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics.

First, Dr. Shi was able to separate himself from most other Chinese peasants (I would assume ninety-ninth percentile range) and granted permission to further study at the Jilin University. Then, he was able, once again, separate himself from peers by getting accepted to a highly competitive Shanghai school. How are we certain that this is highly competitive?

The institute had access to a small quota of coveted government-sponsored spots for overseas study.

Government sponsored spots for overseas study. Small number. In a land where millions upon millions of college-aged kids are working their butts off, the government only chooses a small number of winners. Of course, a small number of winners implies an extremely large number of losers.

Now, when the government allows its best and brightest to escape its oppressive boundaries, do they all come back? Of course not.

Close to 800,000 Chinese students have gone abroad since the government first started sponsoring them for overseas study in 1978. Drawn by job opportunities overseas, less than a third have come back so far. But the rate at which they are arriving is accelerating.

It is ironic that China allows their best minds to leave, when most do not return. I assume, they are playing the odds and just hoping enough return to keep their government in power. Lately more and more are choosing to return, in light of the economic changes. I am confident that the amount of students returning is directly proportional to the business and freedom climate. As markets are liberalized, more Chinese will return.

But people (and brains and ideas and innovation and jobs, etc) are not the only thing that is on the rise in China.

At the same time, foreign venture capitalists are flooding the country with unprecedented amounts of money and Chinese companies are finding the can raise money from stock offerings abroad. Combined with the heady opportunities from an economy expanding at 10% annually, the result ahs been the creation of private wealth on an unprecedented scale.

Yet Dr. Shi has also shown a knack for challenging the status quo. His plan to start a solar-power company in China drew skepticism from colleagues, but he managed to obtain government funding.

Rather than allowing people the freedom to create businesses, the Chinese Mafioso government decides whose doors are open and whose are closed. Rather than shopping his business idea around to different private citizen investors, Dr. Shi had to beg for funding and permission from Chinese Dons.

Dr. Shi shopped his proposal to several Chinese cities with ambitions to attract high-tech businesses. Wuxi, a fast-growing city near Shanghai, offered $6 million as a start-up investment. Government funds and state companies would own 75% of the company, and a local official would serve as chairman. Dr. Shi would put in the technology he owned and $400,000 of his own money for a 25% stake, and get a free hand to run the company. He agreed and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., as it was then called, was registered on January 21, 2001.

Dr. Shi's company grew and grew. He had to remain innovative in order to succeed.

It was under these pressures that Dr. Shi came up with his signature innovation, which he likes to call simply "low-cost expansion." "Coming from a scientist background, I always pursued high efficiency, as high as possible," he says. Instead, Dr. Shi reorganized the manufacturing process to reduce automation, taking some processes from machines and putting them into the hands of workers, who in China were cheaper. He cobbled together parts from different suppliers, including little-known Chinese companies. He bought used gear from an Italian laboratory and new equipment from a Japanese startup.

Workers in China were cheaper. A business will always pay the lowest amount of money possible for labor. Which works out good for everyone, mostly the workers.

Suntech's revenue zoomed to $226 million last year, from just $14 million in 2003. First-half revenue this year was $218 million. Suntech's cost advantages have endured: It is now selling its solar modules for $3.78 per watt, well below the average global market price of $4.30 estimated by Photon Consulting.

The business was booming. Naturally, The Mafioso needed to start wetting their beaks.

By 2004, Suntech's government owners had also taken a note of Suntech's improving fortunes, and wanted a more active role in the company. That put chairman Li Yanren, the government's representative, into conflict with Dr. Shi. The internal strife consumed several months, but eventually the board threw its backing to Dr. Shi, making him chairman as well as chief executive. Mr. Li, who received a compensation package upon leaving, declined to comment.

Dr. Shi wanted to get rid of the Mafioso goons who were impeding his success. But to do that he had to use the argument that by getting out of the way, the government would receive more taxes. Which is what all governments should both logically and morally strive for.

Dr. Shi argued that getting the state shareholders out of the company would allow Suntech to grow faster, hire more people and pay more taxes. That swayed city government officials, who helped Dr. Shi work on convincing the company shareholders.

In May 2005, an $80 million sale of shares to venture capitalists, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., financed their exit.

Dr. Shi hasn't left his academic past behind. His office is piled with technical papers and decorated, if that's the word, with photographs of silicon crystals. He can still unconsciously switch to a professor's chalkboard style when he has to explain technical concepts.

Although many people don't believe it, there are some nice people running and working for corporations. Dr. Shi, of course, is one of them.

Now, hopefully, you are still reading. :) This next paragraph segues nicely to the aforementioned question of philanthropy versus running a business.

He has already started giving his money away, an unusual move in a country where private philanthropy is largely undeveloped. Recently, his family trust gave donations to a nursing home and a school on Shanghai. For now, however, his main focus remains on the business. Having just bought a company in Japan, Dr. Shi says his goal is to turn Suntech into a true multinational.

So, Dr. Shi does both. He runs a business and gives money away. The question I am wondering is this: If you found yourself in the situation with a decent chunk of cash, would it be better to use the money for business start-up costs and open a business, or give the money away to charity? Also, I am defining 'better' as better for society, and the world. Which is the more moral decision? I will judge this very simply on a few criteria.

First of all, without his business, how would he have ever been able to come up with millions of dollars to give to charity? Score one for opening a business. Second, when one gives to charity they are giving a handout (in many situations morally justified). When one signs a paycheck they are allowing a person to work for a livelihood. Putting clothes on his back and feeding his children. Score two for opening a business. Third, when a business becomes successful, it generates residual income. This income provides people with food and shelter, and the opportunity to give some of their income to charity. Score three for opening a business. Fourth, when a business becomes successful, it provides competition in the marketplace raising pace of technology which in turn leads to innovations such as open heart surgery and cleaner drinking water. Score four for opening a business. Fifthly, when a business becomes successful, it lowers the cost for whatever product or service it is providing. This allows poor people to spend less of their money on that specific item, making them richer. Score five for opening a business. Sixth, by opening a business, one provides more tax revenue for the government so that we can live peacefully by policing the streets, defending property, and administering court. (The only moral functions of a government). Score six for opening a business. Seventh, when one donates to charity,, they are often given a mug or umbrella. Score one for giving to charity.

Therefore, by a final score of 6 - 1, opening a business is clearly the more moral decision. Like Martin Luther King, Dr. Shi dreams of a better society for his people.

"The time is right, the soil is rich," he says. "Now there's already a lot of Chinese dreams being realized. And I think there are a lot more to come."

I'm going to wrap this post up, so I can donate two dollars to the Breast Cancer Foundation by buying a glass of pink lemonade on my Delta flight.

I wrote the president of the AOA (American Osteopathic Medical Association), Dr. John Strosnider a few months ago on his blog:

Recently, I've been following the exponential growth of so-called 'in-store clinics' with great interest. They seem to offer great access, lower costs, and benefits to patients and by some estimates are on the verge of revolutionizing health care. However, I've been concerned with the response of the AMA, which seems to be seeking to limit them via regulation and engage in 'turf protection', licensing wars etc...
I was wondering what the AOA’s position is on this, and was rather hoping it would be different from the AMA's. In my humble opinion, I think it should be the consumers of healthcare, rather than politicians or doctor organizations who determine whether these in-store clinics thrive or perish. In the end, I feel this approach will also benefit DOs, as we have a lot to offer patients in our own right.

    Dr. Stro responded:
    Thanks for your thoughts, I agree with you in many ways, however quality should be the hallmark of any practice location.
    In store clinics are convenient, usually less expensive and usually limited in what they will see. They are usually manned by a nurse practicioner or Physician Assistant. Some with physician oversight, however in many states this is not required.
    It has been said that we are our own worse enemies, and in this case, especially for primary care physicians it is probably true. With limited office hours, no weekend hours, no night call, the public will rebel and seek alternatives. They do not, as you would not, want to just be referred to a local emergency room by a recording at the doctor's office, after work at 4:30 or 5:00 pm, or in the evening or on Saturday morning. ERs are many times impersonal, expensive and time consuming, especially for more minor ailments or concerns. No wonder the public seeks help elsewhere.
    I think that most people would rather see their physician, however when the physician is not available, or makes it such a hassle to see them, I don't blame them for going elsewhere.
    I can tell you that when I practiced, our group had evening hours, sometimes to seven or eight in the evening. We were open every Saturday, and there were many times when on call for the week, I would meet patients at the office - after hours, or on Sunday to suture, cast, or check other complaints.
    I do not know where you live, but I do not see much if any of that here in eastern Kentucky.
    As an osteopathic physician, I hope you remember this when you practice. Our patients' time is valuable, they seek help when they are concerned or hurting, not just between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm Monday through Friday.
    I commend Dr. Stro for his response, especially his emphasis on making doctors more competitive. In fact, this is the key end result of increases in freedom, liberty, and the stemming entrepreneurship. Whether it is school choice, medical choice, or 'voting with your feet' ie location, it has been government monopolies, licensing or otherwise, which encourage stagnation and limit innovation. When those monopolies are broken, when freedom is unleashed, positive results are attained. Dr. Stro did mention his concern for the 'quality' of the in-store clinics, often a code word for increasing the regulatory burden on these stores, but since we don't know this for certain, I'll refrain from jumping to judgment on, IMHO, an otherwise excellent response.

It is tempting to think that Medicare's payment system exists to benefit physicians who know how to play the game. But few physicians enjoy having their practices thrown into turmoil by payment changes uttlerly unrelated to the value they provide.

A more plausible explanation is that Medicare's pricing system exists to serve Washington's political class. Politicians can use the perennial threat of payment cuts to shake down wealthy physicians for political contributions. Organizations that lobby on behalf of physicians - like the AMA and the AAFP - rake in membership fees as well. It is little wonder that, according to the watchdog group Political Money Line, the health-care industry spends more on political contributions and lobbying than any other.

This is madness. The government has no business setting prices for physicians' services. Until Congress lets the market set those prices, Medicare will continue to purchase sub-standard care and encourage shakedowns that benefit no one but politicians and lobbyists.

Speaking of 'shakedowns', get a loada this mess... First, before we start, recall that under 'required reading' there is an essay from (R) Ron Paul (TX), which contains the following excerpt:

The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians' power and you take away the very currency of corruption.

Specifically, the indictment alleged Rezko used his influence with top officials in Blagojevich's office in the spring of 2004 to ensure that allies were appointed to or retained seats on a state hospital planning board and the state's Teachers' Retirement System Board, the $36.5 billion pension fund for retired teachers outside of Chicago.

The solution? First, eliminate the 'state hospital planning board'. What is there to plan? The people of the state of Illinois are perfectly capable of building and maintaining their own hospitals without political interference. Second, eliminate public, ie political, control over the pensions of teachers, preferably by allowing parents to control the education of their children by placing schools in the hands of private accountable institutions who compete for customers. In any case, and after all, isn't it by definition the 'teachers' pensions'? Belonging to the teachers? So, why don't the teachers themselves control it?
Blagojevich, whose wife, Patti, netted thousands in fees from real estate deals with Rezko, is desperately trying to distance himself from a man he now calls a traitor.

The solution? As seen by the recent so-called 'scandal' involving Senator Reid in Nevada, there is extensive political control over zoning, licensing, lending, affecting all aspects of real estate dealings, reflective of the consistent propensity of government to meddle with the private property of otherwise free citizens. If these 'perks' were eliminated, any corruption would follow it down the drain.

Rezko was sued for more than $10 million by a Chicago man who says he helped Rezko secure a $1 million loan from Broadway Bank, whose vice president is Democratic state treasurer candidate Alexi Giannoulias.

The indictment alleges that Rezko schemed to extort businesses that came before two state boards with the help of co-conspirator Stuart

The solution? Abolish whatever useless 'state boards' the article is referring to.

While the indictment alleges Rezko and Levine displayed a pattern of attempting to extort several firms, federal prosecutors said.

The solution? The only reason they can extort the private firms is because they have power, through oppressive government, to harm the business of these firms. Eliminate the power of government to do this and the problem is fixed.

Conclusion: This is not a result of 'criminal behavior' of individuals, although the behavior of the individuals certainly was criminal. It is a result of a broken system, with distorted feedback loops such that criminals thrive and are rewarded, while honesty and morality are punished. Notice none of the media articles give even passing mention to, IMO, this most important angle of the story.

Some interesting facts that clash with the political rhetoric about 'drying up student loans' and 'soaring costs' of college and the so-called cutting of 'vital' programs'.

“Twenty-nine to thirty-one percent of high income students take out loans to go to college.”

There is no mystery why this is. Government steals taxpayer money and gives it to these students at interest rates below what can be made in the stock market or any other investments. It is puzzling that 100% of students don't take out the subsidized loans and invest the money in index funds...

Several of the speakers at the event noted that only one-third of students are working their way through college in addition to borrowing, a puzzle when the stated reason for the loan is need. In days of old, students borrowed and worked their way through college.

In fact, Mazzeo, who has worked as a professor at Baruch College, noted that “A surprisingly large number of low-income students do not max out on Stafford loans.” At the other end of the transaction is a multi-billion dollar industry, mostly fueled by tax dollars.

So, just like 'poverty statistics' the reasons for the existence of the 'welfare state' once again prove exaggerated...

LONDON (Reuters) - Many British arthritis patients are still being denied a new generation of medicines, despite a government pledge four years ago to make them universally available, according to research published on Wednesday.

Although the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) approved anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in 2002, access to them still varies widely.

Dr. Lesley Kay, a member of the management committee of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register and co-author of the study, said nearly half of consultants reported restrictions on the prescribing of anti-TNF drugs.

The limitations were mainly in the form of caps on funding for the medicines -- which cost around 10,000 pounds per patient a year -- or caps on the number of patients treated.

    BERLIN (Reuters) - The European governments that created Airbus and funded ambitious jet programmes that allowed it to soar past U.S. rival Boeing, are now hindering the firm's efforts to get over the worst crisis in its history.
    The sudden departure of Airbus CEO Christian Streiff on Monday after only three months in the job has underscored just how important national considerations remain within Airbus and its parent EADS, which has operated with a cumbersome Franco-German management structure since its founding.
    It was Streiff's attempt to break down these structures and introduce cost cuts without regard to political sensitivities, that alienated his managers within EADS and the German government, ultimately making his position untenable.
    "The organisation and governance of EADS have as major objectives the preservation of a delicate balance between men, power and positions," Streiff told French daily Le Figaro on Tuesday. "This formula can work in normal times, but it is not appropriate for a firm that is going through a serious crisis."

Louis Gallois, who took Streiff's place as CEO this week, warned on Tuesday of "painful" job cuts and called EADS structure a "bit baroque". He is likely to meet strong resistance in a company that has always had more success with balanced government-funded expansion than cutbacks.

Government run business is not run as business, but as a political machine, which is true with regards to anything government attempts.

Karma is a term that has been bandied about fairly loosely in common culture. Synonymous with the old expression, 'What goes around comes around', the interpreted meanings of Karma span the spectrum, from cute but meaningless expression to a foundational law of spiritual reality.

IMHO, in my humble opinion, there are two perspectives, possible phenomena, which legitimize the functional meaning of the phrase without laying judgment on the more epistemological claims.

The first starts with the premise that good acts and thoughts, resulting from each other or increased awareness/introspection (and vice versa), bring their own internal rewards. Helping others, achieving goals, controlling the mind, and advancing and improving oneself brings both short and, most especially, long term happiness. Cognitive dissonance between the higher mind and lower animalistic nature is minimized and positive emotions are generated, better said, they are uncovered and freed to elevation. Now, this may be stating the obvious, but when we combine it with our knowledge of how human beings interact, this facet of Karma becomes clearer.

It was somewhat surprising to hear a prominent physician remark, "Whether you like it or not, or are aware of it or not, you will treat your patients differently. You will be more careful, slower, thoughtful, and caring with the ones you like as compared to the ones you don't like. If I really don't like a patient, I won't treat them in order to keep the standard of my care high." (For context, he mostly does nonemergency elective procedures). Whether doctors should take their personal opinions to this level is anyone's judgment call, but the underlying pattern undoubtedly exists and is present in all professions and relationships, if we are honest and humble enough to admit and discover it.

This being the case, it is apparent how good acts and deeds to others around you will be returned, either through direct knowledge and reciprocation of your actions, or indirectly, simply because your resultant happiness makes you likeable.

The second, subtler, Karmic phenomena is less esoteric and more of a product of networking and environmental theory. As we interact with our various social groups we add something to the nature of each. Without going out on a Consciousness limb, the information exchanges and natures of groups of connected persons are reflective of said membership. At any given time one is adding, for lack of a better term, 'positive energy' (positiviness, ie making the group better, increasing the group happiness) or 'negative energy' to each network. Of course, it is often difficult to define exactly what positive and negative 'energy' is, but it can be no more challenging than the analogous interpretations of the 'good and moral acts' of the aforementioned first perspective.

The sum of all our contributions to our various networks and they to each other up to and including the ultimate aggregate network, effect the makeup of these networks, which in turn combine to have a profound impact on every aspect of our lives, fulfilling the karmic prerequisite. But which is more important, the chicken or the egg? Unfortunately, I'd think, we have a tendency to overestimate our ability to contribute positive energy and downplay the degradations of negative energy on our psych. Thus, at least initially, it is important to choose our environments, friends, relationships, and activities carefully, recognizing our extreme fragility, attempting to maximize the 'positive energy' (increased moral improvements/happiness) we receive. After all, how can we contribute positive energy to our networks with a log in our own eye?

This reminds me a bit of author Ayn Rand's brush with treating relationships as capitalistic goods and services, a rather fascinating framework, IMO. What do you give and receive from each relationship? Since we all have different wants and needs and posses different traits of varying value to others, do we not, in effect, participate in a massive 'nonmaterial' market, unregulated I might add :), with other 'cognitive traders' around us? Luckily, we can once again discard the staid viewpoint of our friends on the left, who would surely believe there is only a 'fixed amount' of 'cognitive resources' that must be divvied up equally, and perhaps even taxed... I'm only kidding, but in truth each of us can create our own 'cognitive/emotional/moral wealth', improve ourselves and increase our happiness and awareness without taking anything away from anyone else. In fact, just as financial wealth creation spreads prosperity and benefits everyone, so too does a rising tide raise all boats, the contagiousness of personal advancement, morality, and happiness, is equally as beautiful in its simplicity.

In other words, success in the Doha round of international trade talks would give the world more every year than what Buffett can give once after a lifetime of being the world's most successful investor.

However, even if Gates and Buffet gave the same amount away every year the comparison would still be flawed because Gates and Buffets' charity is given as aid, which is temporary, if even useful, a shot in the arm with possible debilitating side effects. Free trade agreements allow for lasting and sustained economic growth with jobs and wealth permanently created along with a healthy societal dose of moral incentives, such as success and advancement. The benefits of free trade are not disputable, from China, to Ireland, to Estonia, to Chile, to the Smoot-Haley Tariffs of the Great Depression, to NAFTA, you'll be hard pressed to find an economist speaking on the record against free trade. In fact, the only losers in all of this are the Unions, but that's only because their government imposed monopolies are being chipped away... Boo hoo....

Now, from here we can go a few places. First, we can launch an attack on our friends on the left, who attempt to cherry pick data, dividing state and private 'aid' into two categories, ignoring the private 'aid', which Americans lead on a per capita basis, and laud the 'public' or, better said, 'pillaged', aid, a dubious category lead by socialistic nations such as some in Europe, whom forcibly take more per capita from their citizens to redistribute as 'aid' than Americans. While we still win this argument, even on their own terms, we need to go one step further and question the assumption that these 'aid' statistics are even relevant. In fact, IMO, their basic premise is irrelevant, besides illustrating basic ideological failings (the subject of the other head of our pincer movement), as it is free trade, freedom, which really alleviates poverty and spreads prosperity and even (ehm, ehm) practical inequality.

The second attack is more satisfying than scrimmaging with our friends on the left, as it is a direct assault on government itself. This prong retrospectively lays the blame at the foot of government for prolonging the poverty of the people. After all, what is free trade, but removing and reducing the size of government? 100% free trade would be the natural state of things if governments and politicians were not around to ply their corruptive and corrosive policies upon uneducated and ill-informed populaces. The enemy here is government and, more importantly, IMO, the enemy is government in nearly all other facets of public policy as well.

P-R Farms, like farms up and down California and across the nation, does not have enough workers to process its fruit.

"We're short by 50 to 75 people," said Pat Ricchiuti, 59, the third-generation owner of P-R Farms. "For the last three weeks, we're running at 50 percent capacity. We saw this coming a couple years ago, but last year and this year has really been terrible."

The problem is now reaching crisis proportions, food growers say. As much as 30 percent of the year's pear crop was lost in Northern California, growers estimate. More than one-third of Florida's Valencia orange crop went unharvested, Regelbrugge said. In New York, apples are rotting on the trees, because workers who once picked the fruit have fled frequent raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, said Maureen Marshall, an apple grower in Elba.

Big Government raising the price of our food and hurting our farmers. Thanks guys!

A key issue has been the company's ability to close money-losing plants. The union wants to keep the 12 plants open.

Who owns the plants? The company or the union? This same pattern is occurring with US car companies. I was surprised to see a 'steelworkers' union still existed, because I was under the impression they had bankrupted the remaining steel companies in the United States.

The United States is the world leader in nanotechnology -- the newly blossoming science of making incredibly small materials and devices -- but is not paying enough attention to the environmental, health and safety risks posed by nanoscale products, says a report released yesterday by the independent National Research Council. <.>

Norris Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the Food and Drug Administration and chairman of the working group that created the administration's summary research plan presented to Congress last week, said the document -- which was supposed to be delivered six months ago -- was meant as "a first step."

In one woman, for example, a zap to a brain region called the angular gyrus resulted in a sensation that she was hanging from the ceiling, looking down at her body.

And while it may be tempting to invoke the supernatural when this body sense goes awry, he said the true explanation is a very natural one, the brain’s attempt to make sense of conflicting information.

This reminds of me of the book 'Why God Won't go Away', where researchers did brain scans of persons who were thinking about, either meditating or praying to God and discovered, roughly, the area of the brain where God is experienced/perceived. Interestingly, Buddhist monks and Christian nuns lit up the same areas of the brain during their respective spiritual practices.

However, contrary to this NYT article, these researchers did not assume scientific explanations of the supernatural eliminated the supernatural, but instead left open the possibility that their discovery actually confirmed it. Personally, I'm ambivalent about which path one follows, as negatives, either way, are rather hard to prove. :)

A February 2005 Harris poll commissioned by Yoga Journal, the leading American yoga magazine, found that 7.5 percent of U.S. adults, or 16.5 million people, practice yoga; that's an increase of 43 percent from 2002.

Interesting statistics. Of course, this trend is happening not because of government, but because the people are freely choosing it. Well, government still has it hands somewhat in the cookie jar...:

Los Angeles prosecutors charged "hot yoga" guru Bikram Choudhury with operating a yoga studio without a permit and other violations that could land the controversial instructor in jail.

Choudhury, his landlord American Sunroof Corp. and company president Christian Prechter were each charged on Thursday with 10 criminal counts including operating without a certificate, overcrowding the yoga studio and not maintaining emergency exits. Each faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail for each count, and/or a $1,000 fine (540 pounds).

The FDA requires milk to be pasteurized (heated) and homogenization (filtered). Why? If it is not treated as such, it is claimed we could get sick from bacteria. Thus, to protect us from ourselves, the FDA and other big government types will throw us in jail if we sell this sort of milk or dairy products. Sure, there are cases of raw milk being harmful, but there are also cases of pasteurized and homogenized milk being harmful.

In any case, this is a thorough, well written article; the author has a good sense of humor. :)

The FDA'S 2006 science forum was held in April in a cavernous, blue-carpeted hall at the Washington Convention Center. There were row after row of poster presentations with titles such as "Characterizing Perfluorochemical Migration From Food Contact Paper" and "Evaluation of Nanomaterials' Immunotoxicity: Examples of Polystyrene Nanoparticles."

His wife also grew up drinking raw milk on a dairy farm. They feed their kids raw milk. He says he has never become ill from drinking it. Neither has his wife or his kids. In fact, he's never known anyone who has gotten sick from drinking raw milk. When I tell him that the FDA has called raw milk "inherently dangerous," he rolls his eyes. "Yeah, that's what they say," he says. The young farmer is not a man of lengthy explanations.

State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.

I am not a business owner. If I was, I would be most terrified of one thing: Congress' Big Government Gavel. Today, Congress made a decision, and, as usual, the results of the decision make life worse for people all over the world. It seems that a lot of people enjoy spending some (or a lot) of their own free time and money gambling. As such, entrepreneurial individuals came up with a way to provide internet gambling sites a reliable electronic money-transferring system. With today's passage of HR 4954, the Safe Port Act, Congress made those businesses illegal in the United States.

Neteller, the best known and most trusted gaming e-wallet shares lost 60.56% of their value or 215 pence Monday, closing the harshest day the gaming industry recalls at 140 pence.

Too bad for Neteller (London Stock Exchange business). Too bad for anyone that enjoys internet gambling. Too bad for freedom. Neteller wasn't the only casualty of the Republican dominated Congress.

Leisure & Gaming shares closed at -74.68%, Sportingbet at -64.18%, PartyGaming at -57.94%, Betcorp at 45.86%.

"[w]here government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our destiny atrophies"

Privately owned gaming operators report business as usual. “we were booking illegal before, and it's still illegal, what has changed?” a well known bookmaker told TheOnlineWire.com this afternoon. “What changed is all the marketing yuppies and geeks are scared and bailing out. Let the real book makers take the market back.”

There you have it. The government's decision forces honest people to cease doing business in that trade. Now, that trade will be ruled, once again, by organized crime, much like the prohibition era of the United States. With legal gambling, big losers face big bills. With only illegal gambling, big losers face big broken knuckles.

Great read for anyone that is interested in the ongoing failure of government schooling. An inner-city school in Baltimore is having success with some of the nation's least likely to succeed.

The school, better known as Baltimore Talent Development High School, is on the cutting edge of a decade-long experiment to stem the nation's dropout crisis. In a city where an estimated four in 10 students graduate, principal Jeffrey Robinson counts just half a dozen students who have dropped out in the school's first two years.

Yet it's working, on a simple, common-sense principle: Find a dynamic principal with high expectations, give him what he needs, and let him hire the teachers he wants. Provide a rigorous curriculum and massive intervention for freshmen who read and do math at elementary school levels. And then get out of the way.

And then get out of the way. Did you hear that Federal Government? Get out of the way. United States Department of Education, get the heck out of the way.

In the near absence of passenger cars, these buggies serve as taxis and local buses in rural areas of Cuba, and the flaming buckets function as homemade taillights.

Countless chroniclers of Cuba have observed that the vintage American cars in Havana -- the fabulous, hulking Buicks and finned Chryslers -- make the capital feel like a city frozen in the 1950s. But outside Havana, in the vast expanse of the Caribbean's largest island, the ambiance often leans more toward the 1850s.

But then again, the government pays her [a Dermatologist] only about $30 a month for her work, treating the sunburns and bug bites that afflict European and Canadian tourists at nearby beach resorts. <.>

A new car was out of the question. Cubans need government permission to buy new cars, which usually go to government agencies or to people involved in tourism and development, and almost no one outside those lines of work can afford one if they could get permission.

Quite a different picture of Cuba than is typically painted by the media, Castro supporters in Hollywood, and our friends on the far left.

An incredibly important bill that is not passing. The brain drain needs to be to, not from, the United States. This sort of expansive government also encourages outsourcing, reduces American jobs, and limits prosperity and growth for all.

Pathak cited the Hungarian roots of Intel Corp. co-founder Andrew S. Grove, whose work helped create the modern computer industry that employs millions of Americans.

"What would have happened if the United States had decided to close the doors on him?" Pathak said.

A scathing attack on the United Nations from the New York Post. The point is not that President Chavez repeatedly called Bush 'the Devil' in his diatribe before the United Nations, but that afterwards there was laughter and applause from the attending UN delegates. This went too far even for US Democrats who condemned Chavez in the strongest possible terms. But these Democrats and even most Republicans did not attack the root of the problem - the 'United Nations' itself. Which is why I like the tone of this article:

May your prayers be answered, Señor Chavez. May the United Nations leave New York for residence in Venezuela, so very far from the diplos' lush and cushy berth on the East Side. The sorry organization isn't worth the gridlock.

You're more than welcome, please, to take the atrophied, self-abasing remains of a global ideal 2,100 miles to Caracas, where you can play the messianic oil baron game to your heart's content with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fresh in from Tehran, perhaps with a dirty bomb in his suitcase.

Saddam Hussein had his way with the UN by corrupting the oil-for-food program to buy his way out of having to comply with weapons inspections. Today's trade is oil for nukes, and the UN is again reclining into a supine position.

BOILING SPRING LAKES, N.C., Sept. 23 (AP) — Over the past six months, landowners here have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.

The chain saws started in February, when the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put Boiling Spring Lakes on notice that rapid development threatened to squeeze out the woodpecker.

The results can be seen all over town. Along the roadsides, scattered brown bark is all that is left of pine stands. Mayor Joan Kinney has watched with dismay as waterfront lots across from her home on Big Lake have been stripped down to sandy wasteland.

Whodathunkit? Government action results in the opposite of their intentions? And who can blame these property owners? They are just trying to prevent the theft (devaluation) of their property by government.

Check this out for a great recap of the history of media and scientific coverage of global warming (and cooling). :)

Belarus' government is practicing censorship. I know little about Belarus, but from what I've read, it's pretty bleak. The government controls almost all of industry.

80%! Think about that. A couple hundred years ago, in New England, people were willing to kill King George and his cronies for a tax increase! Today, the United States is the most prosperous, freest country in the world...but I digress.

The fact that the Belarus government, which is an authoritarian, repressive regime, is punishing the communist Party of Belarus (by definition authoritarian and repressive) is interesting. The Communist Party is standing strong though:

Sergei Kalyakin, the Communist Party leader, said the party has started forming a new organization in Minsk.

"We will continue our political activity, which is aimed at restoring democracy, freedom and human rights in Belarus, no matter what," he said.

What really fights poverty? How do third and second world counties become first world countries? Estonia tells us the answer is freedom.

    Economists call Estonia the Baltic Tiger, the sequel to the Celtic Tiger as Europe’s success story, and its policies are more radical than Ireland’s. On this year’s State of World Liberty Index, a ranking of countries by their economic and political freedom, Estonia is in first place, just ahead of Ireland and seven places ahead of the U.S. (North Korea comes in last at 159th.)
    It transformed itself from an isolated, impoverished part of the Soviet Union thanks to a former prime minister, Mart Laar, a history teacher who took office not long after Estonia was liberated. He was 32 years old and had read just one book on economics: “Free to Choose,” by Milton Friedman, which he liked especially because he knew Friedman was despised by the Soviets.
    Laar was politically naïve enough to put the theories into practice. Instead of worrying about winning trade wars, he unilaterally disarmed by abolishing almost all tariffs. He welcomed foreign investors and privatized most government functions (with the help of a privatization czar who had formerly been the manager of the Swedish pop group Abba). He drastically cut taxes on businesses and individuals, instituting a simple flat income tax of 26 percent.
    These reforms were barely approved by the legislature amid warnings of disaster: huge budget deficits, legions of factory workers and farmers who would lose out to foreign competition. But today the chief concerns are what to do with the budget surplus and how to deal with a labor shortage. <.>

The growth over the past decade has produced so much unanticipated revenue that the tax rate is being gradually reduced to 20 percent. Laar’s political rivals still complain that his flat tax unfairly helps the rich, but as he notes, the level of income inequality in Estonia actually declined during the past decade.

On the other hand, what does the Mayor of New York think the answer is to fighting poverty? Socialism.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Poor New Yorkers who make healthy choices - such as staying in school and regularly seeing the doctor - should be rewarded with cash to help break the cycle of poverty, Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested Monday.

This is almost as condescending as the views of persons like Paul Farmer who support the ideas of paying TB (Tuberculosis) patients cash if they return to the free western clinics for their follow up treatments.

The commission, headed by Time Warner's chief executive, Richard Parsons, and the president of the nonprofit group Harlem Children's Zone, Geoffrey Canada, said many New Yorkers are locked in a cycle of poverty in which built-in conditions trap them into failure.

Well, they are at least correct about this. Government punishes the financial success of those in poverty by taking away their government health, housing, cash, food, and who knows how many other goodies the moment they begin to succeed. Welfare Reform provided ample evidence that government itself is creating/incentivising these cycles.

In countries such as Mexico and Brazil, there has been widespread praise for World Bank-supported programs that give financial rewards to parents for sending their children to school and regular doctors' visits.

Somehow Mexico and Brazil don't seem like shinning role models in tackling poverty, much less the United Nations... Why don't we look to Estonia?

1990: 0 charter schools
January 2004: 684,000 students in 2,996 charter schools
October 2005: 1,076,964 students in 3,625 charter schools

1. New Orleans, LA 69%
2. Dayton, OH 28%
3. Washington, DC 25%
4. Pontiac, MI 20%
5. Kansas City, MO 20%
6. Youngstown, OH 20%

I still wonder how many of the nearly 4000 charter schools in the United States are really free. After all, it is the tendency of politicians and government to appease the people by changing the labeling of an issue. For example, fascists, in contrast to communists, appear to allow ownership of 'private property', but then the state contrives so many rules and regulations around what property owners could do with their property that, for all intents and purposes, the state owns all property in all but name. This difference of perception, brought about by psychological sleight of hand, still results in many believing there is a significant difference between fascism and communism.

I think that all of us agree that free speech is the most important freedom every society should rightfully enjoy. Without freedom of expression, we have nothing. Our property becomes worthless, the courts are irrelevant, and the right to bear arms is futile. That said, it is imperative that all opinions should be expressed. If one does not examine, listen, and think about a diverse array of opinions, how can one ever reach a solid conclusion?

Although I will disagree with most "liberal" viewpoints, I will jump to defend their freedom of speech. That said, take a look at some of the language from the above American newspaper articles:

"state lawmakers are targeting what they see as left-leaning university professors,"

"president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers"

"higher education remains home to dozens more professors and instructors who outspokenly oppose policies that restrict freedom of expression"

"lawmakers have floated or are planning a host of proposals that would restrict what students can be required to read,"

Similar, eh? Each quote above was taken from article 1, then article 2, then article 1, then article 2, then article 1, then article 2. Now, in the stunning conclusion, I will show the major difference between the articles:

"Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, plans to introduce an ‘‘Academic Bill of Rights'' next year designed to keep liberal bias out of the classroom."

"Iran's hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country."

Health disparities are widely considered an issue of minorities and the poor being unable to find or afford good medical care. But Murray's government-funded study shows the problem is far more complex, and that geography plays a crucial role.

The longest-living whites were not the relatively wealthy, which Murray calls "Middle America." They are edged out, by a year, by low-income residents of the rural Northern Plains states in the Midwest, where the men tend to reach age 76 and the women 82.

Murray was surprised to find that lack of health insurance explained only a small portion of those gaps. Instead, differences in alcohol and tobacco use, blood pressure, cholesterol and obesity seemed to drive death rates.

Most important, he said, will be pinpointing geographically defined factors — such as shared ancestry, dietary customs, local industry, what regions are more or less prone to physical activity — that in turn influence those health risks.

This is certainly an interesting study; we are always told that there is a healthcare crisis in America and that folks aren't getting the healthcare they need, yet it appears here that lifestyle and culture are playing a much greater role. In fact, life-expectancy has never been an adequate measure of modern healthcare, a view which is probably not shared by many in the medical community.

It is not a coincidence that the author of this study looked at Appalachian whites, inner city blacks, and Native Americans. Most likely, he was aiming for conclusions quite different than the ones he has inadvertently reinforced. These were the same populations studied in 'Welfare; History, Results, and Reform' and it was found that condescending, de-empowering, paternal governmental programs were significantly correlated with not just poverty, but sociologic failings like drug abuse and family structure. IMHO, the correlation was significant enough to equal causation. If true, might it not also be the case that these same government policies, the handouts, the freebees, the lack of respect for property, all of which corrupt and degrade the human spirit, are also at least partially responsible for the cultures and behaviors that equate with lower life expectancies?

This more precise measure of health disparities will enable federal officials to better target efforts to battle inequalities, said Dr. Wayne Giles of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which helped fund Murray's work.

Inequalities of income or healthcare should not be a target or concern of government! Government action will only make whatever token inequalities exist worse.

"It's not just telling people to be active or not to smoke," he said. "We need to create the environment which assists people in achieving a healthy lifestyle."

I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us! Do nothing with us!..-<>-.. ..just let him alone! Your interference is doing him a positive injury!

A great article! It is about time someone blamed the world's governments for the oil shortages and the resultant economic stagnations and sufferings.

In 'Atlas Shrugged', author Ayn Rand writes a fictional mirror image of the description of what is happening to Venezuela's oil company.

Another theory is that without foreign aid or natural resources, governments are forced to liberalize because it is the only way for them to get tax revenues. In other words, when wealth can only be generated through the naked productivity/ingenuity of it's citizens, the rulers of that country will be most inclined to introduce reforms to accelerate this. Notice some of the strongest economic zones in the world today - Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and the (early, eastern) United States - are poor in natural resources. Historically, the British, Dutch, Portuguese and, going way back, Carthageans and Athenians, were all were top world powers without being strong in natural resources. Why was the Spanish Empire, a centrally controlled country drowning in colonial gold, discarded into the ash heap of history so fast? Returning to the Africa analogy, the areas which are richest in natural resources, especially the diamond belt, are suffering the greatest conflict and strife.

One factor that does not seem to be a prerequisite to success for a national oil company is having a lot of oil. Petrobras, for one, began life as a refiner and distributor. It used its profits from those businesses to fund new ventures in exploration and production. Abundant, inalienable oil, on the other hand, seems to do most state-run firms more harm than good.

Another theme, touched on throughout this website, is that, sure, we have it bad here, our government is oppressive and large and immoral, but.... we still have it much better than anywhere else. The United States is home to most of the world's largest private oil companies and, even though these are still layered with burdensome taxes and regulations, we can still be thankful that we don't even have a single state oil company... yet.

9/2/06 Club For Growth A great roundup of how campaign finance 'reform' is anything but.

9/1/06 LewRockwell.com This is interesting, historically, as there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about how it happened.

Video of a good skewering the media and blasting the judges of San Francisco. Background. On a side note, can you make the connection between this story and this press conference? :)

Since we're on the subject of the FDA, I thought I'd take the opportunity to show off my new license plate :) :

Scientists for the first time have genetically modified tumor-fighting immune cells, allowing patients to rid themselves of an aggressive form of cancer, according to a study released Thursday.
The technique, used to cure two patients with advanced melanoma, paves the way for a new approach to fighting cancer by harnessing — and boosting — the body's own immune system instead of relying on toxic chemotherapy and radiation treatments to kill out-of-control tumors.

They added that there is still more failure than success with the technique. Fifteen other melanoma patients enrolled in the study failed to show sustained improvement from the modified immune cells. Twelve of those patients have passed away, and the other three are near death, Rosenberg said.
But the success with two patients, who are cancer-free more than a year and a half after their treatment, was enough to demonstrate the possibility of a new front in the long, intractable war against cancer.

Now, as we know, any doctors that try this approach on terminally ill patients with cancer will get thrown in jail by the FDA. We can assume this particular trial was only allowed to go forward with the utmost bureaucratic involvement and haggling and we've already documented that the FDA has severely limited gene therapy trials.
Melanoma accounts for only 4% of skin cancer cases, but it is the most lethal type. More than 62,000 patients will be diagnosed with melanoma this year, and 7,910 people will die from it, according to estimates from the American Cancer Society.

If we assume the success rate for this type of therapy is 2/15, 13%, and that all of the 7,910 people who are about to die want to try the therapy, then it follows that 1054 of these people would be alive today. That is, if the FDA did not exist.

Of course, one might argue that not all of these folks would try the therapy and that we don't even know for sure what the actual percent of success is, given the small sample size and the propensity of docs to 'creatively' design trials and interpret data. Maybe so. But I'd counter with the fact that the FDA has surely set back gene therapy (and other therapies!) years and years with its asinine regulations and prohibitions on trials etc... (Readers may recall the article posted about the exodus of patients and clinicians to china.)

If history is any guide, and the FDA has delayed gene therapy 12 years, which is, on average, how long it takes for a new drug to get approval, then it is not unreasonable to estimate that over 12,000 persons are now dead due to the FDAs attempts to protect us, and, apparently, the deceased. In fact, the number is likely higher, because with more trials and competition, the therapies would have improved faster and started earlier.

Again, let us be clear, the efficacy of gene therapy is besides the point, the substitution of 'any medical advancement' for gene therapy, will illustrate the pattern in question.

As you can see, expert opinion here at Neoperspectives.com has already been expressed on this subject. :) However, I'd like to leave one further quote, and another example of the FDA, and its outside 'expert' docs playing God:

In June 2005, a panel of heart experts appointed to advise the F.D.A. voted, 7 to 6, against approving the Abiomed device, in part because of concern that the risks from complications like bleeding, strokes and infection outweighed the benefits. Some panel members expressed concern about whether patients would live long enough with an improved quality of life to justify the risks.

Who better to weight the risks and benefits than the terminally ill patients themselves? What about their concerns? Who owns their lives? Who are these meddling middlemen?

The Food and Drug Administration gave preliminary approval today to Abiomed Inc. to sell its AbioCor device, the first fully implantable mechanical heart, just over a year after an FDA panel of outside experts voted against giving the Massachusetts company permission to sell the device.

How is it that we the people, define expert? Would your definition of expert be the same as mine? Maybe or maybe not. The FDA hired experts to determine whether or not a private company could sell a potentially life-saving device to willing private citizens. The experts voted no. A year later, apparently against the advice of the experts, the FDA changed its mind.

Continue to think about that. The FDA hired experts to make a decision for them. The FDA apparently could not make the decision itself, so rather than wallow in its own stupidity, or non-expertise, it hired experts to make the decision. The FDA took the advice of the experts....for one year.

Somehow, the FDA has decided that the experts it hired are no longer experts. They did not hire more experts to examine the previous experts expertise, they simply decided, in a very non-expertise way (they aren't experts, if they were, they wouldn't have hired experts), to discontinue the advice the experts put forth, after one year.

The company, who ingenuously conceived of, researched, developed, built, and tested the device? Not experts.

Aha! Humanitarian Exemption! The company, who had possibly developed a life saving device for countless Americans, and people all over the world, was not considered humanitarian, until now. Today. They weren't humanitarian last week, or last month. But today, they are.

But remember, this device can only be used for patients who are believed to be in the last month of life. What if the doc thinks you have six months to live? What if his expert opinion puts you at 37 days?

An FDA spokesman expects that the company will sell between 25 and 50 devices a year

First of all how could we trust the voice of an FDA spokesman? He is certainly not an expert! If he were, he would have been an outside expert.

I certainly don't trust the number of 25 - 30 which the non-expert FDA generated. But why should we care about how many of the life-saving devices the non-expert FDA has projected for sales?

It gets worse and worse! Pray for the 4001 person that orders one of these life-saving devices from the recently humanitarian but non-expert company!

Excuse me, non-expert (experts don't work for the FDA, they hire them to approve or disapprove of inventions made by private citizens) Dr. Daniel Schultz, in your non-expert opinion, how do you feel about the four thousand first applicant who will be denied a life-saving device by your organization?

I wonder how many people, who in their last month of life, over the past year, sat thinking about possibly buying this mechanical heart. Remember, the experts disapproved of the now humanitarian heart.

Would you pay 250K for an extra few months? Uhh, yeah! But more importantly, this is the first ever device of its kind. How good did the first car do, compared with a 2006 Honda Civic? How would the first airplane compare to today's jumbo jet?

"The results of AbioCor have not been good. … I am surprised that the FDA gave their approval," said Dr. Frank Sellke, chief of cardiothoracic surgical research at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston.

Hmm. I wonder if he's an expert? Franky thinks the government ought not give you, in your dying days, the freedom to put a device in your body that will probably prolong your life. Is it worth it, for even a day? Ask those people in their dying days whose eighteen year old daughter will graduate high school in three months. Ask those people whose son comes back from a tour in Iraq in six weeks.

What!??!!? The patient is laying on a hospital bed, ASKING you to please perform the surgery. If you don't do it, move out of the way for the thousands of doctors who would love to!

Creators of the artificial heart do agree that much research and development is still required . Follow-up studies to look at the device are planned in up to 10 facilities.

How else will they make improvements in order to make a profit? A friend of mine, the future Dr. Trista, gave her opinion, that the FDA should only be allowed to approve of hearts made of Swiss cheese. Obviously, she has a future with the FDA since no sane human being would call her an expert. Lucky for Vanderbilt University, they have a possible expert

Posted 9/4/06 (By Dobber)
Another Labor Day, Another Complaint About Labor
Boston.Com
I knew it would be out there: A Labor Day newspaper article, where a journalist writes about labor statistics. Of course, the situation is dire, and getting worse; and if you're a middle class or poor person, you should blame it all on rich people and rich people in bed with politicians for your personal economic woes. I certainly agree with that, partly. The title of his article is "Another Year, Another Wage Loss".

Government statistics show that the typical family works about 500 more hours a year than families did 30 years ago, because it takes two incomes to make it. Even so, family incomes are failing to keep pace with the cost of living.

Interesting. Over the past thirty years, it has gotten harder for regular Americans to make money. This increase in difficulty for Regular Joe Americans has coincided with an increase in the size (and cost) of the federal government. Based on that simple statement one could theorize that there happens to be a correlation there. So, the hypothesis goes something like this: As size of government increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for Regular Joe American to increase his own personal wealth. Another way to state that is: As size of government increases, economic growth decreases. Now, if only we had a way to test that theory....

Lucky for us, economists frequently ponder that question. Over the weekend I read about that theory here, here, here, and here. All of those studies, by different people, reached the same conclusion that we reached just a second ago. That is, as size of government increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for Regular Joe American to increase his own personal wealth. The case is closed on that question.

The author of the article, Robert Kuttner, does not address that apparent correlation in his article. The only time he makes actual government policy references is in this part:

Theda Skocpol, author of several books of social history, tells of interviewing a hard-pressed woman with small children and a low-wage job. Her only social support was that her mother-in-law -- the children's grandmother -- looked after her children while she worked. As Skocpol observes, this was possible only because Social Security enabled the grandmother not to have to work herself.

Skocpol asked the woman whether she thought there was anything government might do to improve her economic circumstances. The woman replied, ``Nothing they do there ever makes a difference for people like me."

But that was not always so. Social Security, Medicare, college aid, the GI Bill, government wage-and-hour laws, and government protection of the right to unionize made a real difference in people's lives.

These policies, which benefited the vast middle class (and helped to create it), did not just happen. They were the result of political organizing and a public awareness that government could affect the economic opportunity and security of ordinary Americans, for better or worse.

He claims that Social Security, Medicare, college aid, the GI Bill, government wage-and-hour laws, and government protection of union rights benefited the vast middle class. All of these policies increase the size and cost of government, and over time, the size of each one of those programs increase, as is the natural tendency of ever-expanding government.

So, how, Mr. Kuttner do these policies help the middle class? How do these policies help poor people? Can someone please point me to any research where the conclusion concludes that increasing the cost of government helps Regular Joe American?

IMO, those conclusions do not exist. Qualifying statement - I do believe that young men and women willing to risk their lives in military service should be afforded a college education at the conclusion of their service.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," Westen is quoted as saying in an Emory University press release. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.

First, this study is interesting because it was done by a Libertarian. :) Secondly, if correct, it offers an interesting view on ideology versus reason. Ideology is more based on emotion, but, unlike what the article infers, I don't necessarily consider this to be a negative, but a neutral statement of fact. Emotional ideology is a useful evolutionary concept. Why should I need to painstakingly reason through every angle of a proposed policy? Instead, generally, if it expands government and limits freedom I consider it 'bad' and if it shrinks government and expands freedom I consider it 'good'. This processing can be done fast and, yes, it is quite satisfying :). However, this sort of reasoning is still reasoning; it is macro-level pattern recognition that has been labeled, perhaps correctly, as emotion.

You see, I think emotion is ultimately derived from the same substance as normal cognizant 'objective' reasoning, but is differentiated only by scale, representing a much lower/subtle form of thought/communication. A danger is that this level is often diluted by instinct and harmful desires.

So, despite its usefulness, ideology inherently runs into problems. Knee jerk reactions are not always the best and everything is not uniformly black or white. And, because of its ingrained structure, we observe the stubborn nature of politics and religion. Conclusions/opinions about both are derived through the aggregate weighing/comparisons of vast quantities of variables and experiences over a lengthy period of time. Hence their emotional and controversial nature and why you can never change someone's mind.

I take that back, a person can change their mind, but it will never, or rarely, be you that has changed it. It will be a combination of persons and events, percolating temporally, hammering away at the widespread neural circuitry, until a yawning tipping point is reached and a change begins so slow the person may even be unaware of it.

Thus, it is best not to go into arguments or discussions even attempting to 'change minds', but with a joyous attitude and appreciation of another's company and interest. This attitude will also facilitate your own learning, advancement, and openness, because, notwithstanding its value, emotion can often, as this study showed, erect walls and barriers. If you are consumed with dislike or frustration at another person's argument, or worse, at the person themselves, how will you have energy left to learn from them, or consider your own flaws? It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said:

In every man there is something wherin, I may learn of him and in that I am his pupil.

This approach also yields curtsey, which is, upon occasion, sorely lacking from religious/political discussions.

Additionally, it is both humbling and refreshing to dig deeper into neurological functionings and theories of networking/group processing and realize that, by definition, we cannot be right about every opinion that we have. We all have strengths and weaknesses in our 'objective' reasonings, which manifest even in our personalities. Studies have shown that, in certain instances, the sum of opinions derived from many individuals is more accurate than the guesstimates of even a so-called expert in whatever area the inquiry is in. Granted, if the whole group is denied certain information or experiences, their accuracy precipitately declines, eventually leading to mob mentality and groupthink. Incidentally, this is why Conservatives and Libertarians spend so much time attacking the media. :)

Regardless, it is probably also true that distancing oneself from outcomes, attempting not to place an 'I' in any contemplated equation, will result in a higher accuracy of processing output, correctness, if you will. But, then again, this is just my opinion and I am a self proclaimed ideologue. :)

Luckily Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto this bill. I really just posted it for this quote:

"The reason health care is messed up is the government," argued Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta. "So why would we want to create even more government?"

Canada's nationalized health-care system, admired by the left all over the world and deplored by the right all over Canada, took another hit last week. The Canadian Medical Association, long its unfailing supporter, suddenly turned against it.

The CMA elected as president Dr. Brian Day, a Vancouver surgeon and one-time supporter of state medicine, who is now an outspoken critic of Canada's "Medicare" system. In fact, he runs the largest private clinic in the country, offering an array of surgical procedures to people prepared to pay for them. In doing so, he challenges the Canada Health Act, which prohibits for-profit medical practice. <.>

Long waits for medical and hospital services are the system's chief symptom of failure. The causes are many, not least a steady exodus of young Canadian doctors to the U.S. – which means, of course, that Canadians are training many doctors to work elsewhere.

State Medical Schools here in the US do the same thing, train doctors at subsidized tuitions, who then go practice in other states. But, the taxpayers don't seem to mind...

TEL AVIV -- Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said yesterday that he would not have ordered the July 12 seizure of two Israeli soldiers had he known it would provoke a war that leveled Shi'ite villages and neighborhoods throughout Lebanon.
"We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he told Lebanon's New TV station.

A rather galling admission if you ask me. Could you imagine if the Mexican government had seized two American soldiers and said the same thing?

How could the response have been anything else?! How could this terrorist imagine it would be any different? Perhaps because Israel has been just as spineless in the past as it was in this conflict. Why was it spineless in this conflict? Well, the two soldiers Hezbollah kidnapped are still missing and the government of Israel is doing nothing. It is not protecting the property of its citizens and as such has failed in its duty as a sovereign government.

Simple question: In a free society, should it be the responsibility of parents, or the federal government to deter children from illicit drug use? Well, apparently, the United States Feds believe it to be their responsibility, not parents. I've been away from high school bathrooms for almost ten years, and I wonder how the War on Drugs is going.

A $1.4 billion anti-drug advertising campaign conducted by the U.S. government since 1998 does not appear to have helped reduce drug use and instead might have convinced some youths that taking illegal drugs is normal, the Government Accountability Office says.

1.4 billion dollars. billion. Like most other programs that fail, the solution is simple, for bureaucrats.

President Bush's budget for 2007 asks Congress for $120 million for the campaign, a $20 million increase from this year.

I assume that federal employees are subject to random drug tests, I've been tested five times in the past year (seriously). Please, Mr. President - test Tom Riley tomorrow, there is absolutely, positively, no sober explanation for this statement, he must be a crack-head.

The GAO report is "irrelevant to us," says Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). "It's based on ads from 2½ years ago, and they were effective, too. Drug use has been going down dramatically. Cutting the program now would imperil (its) progress."

Tim Worstall at TCS Daily wrote an interesting piece today about the results of a 'study' out of the Economic Policy Institute. This chapter of the study analyzes wealth inequality and poverty. The study is 36 pages of jibberjabber revisionist economic dapplerdoppling. Re-read that sentence. That's what I felt like while reading the study. The authors create tables and then change a few parameters and re-table the tables, then re-explain the explanations. Their introduction gets us going :

Two dominant themes emerge from this chapter. First, while the United States is, on average, a very wealthy country, it also has a large variance in incomes between those at the top and the bottom of the income scale. Large variances in incomes make it difficult for economic growth to reach those at the bottom. Therefore, while it is true that many people in the United States are well-off, many are not.

The U.S. has a large variance in income levels. This is an interesting point I hear about all the time. Wealth inequality. By my standards, the fact that wealth inequality exists, is good. Where can we look for the most wealth equal citizens within a nation? Hmmm...North Korea and Cuba come to mind. The reason that the United States has the highest inequality in wealth is because the government in the United States allows citizens the greatest opportunity to become wealthy. The higher the threshold of attainable wealth, the higher the wealth inequality. Shouldn't Bill Gates, or any successful business owner be far wealthier than an 18 year old?

Large variances in incomes make it difficult for economic growth to reach those at the bottom.

False. Tell that to starving people in North Korea. It is amazing that a "nonpartisan think tank", whose sole existence is to think about things, comes up such blatantly wrong assessments.

Therefore, while it is true that many people in the United States are well-off, many are not.

Wow. What a powerful conclusion! It is also true that many people will be born healthy and many will not. It is also true that many days will have sunshine and many days will be cold and miserable.

This fact would come as a surprise to any rational human being. Of course, this statement is not corroborated in the 36 pages. If it is, it must be over my head. United States GDP is approximately 12.5 trillion dollars. The entire European Union has a slightly higher GDP. However the population of the United States is approximately 295 million and 462 million in the EU. Simple math can lead to a very different assessment than that of the professional thinkers at the Economic Policy Institute.

Questionable statements, assumptions, and conclusions abound in the nonpartisan study. Of course, the predictably dire conclusion goes, in part, like this:

Lack of policy focus to alleviate such problems. Sigh. The only policy to alleviate poverty that works, is one that is non-existent.

Another update to 'Ebay, Tax Cuts, and Capitalism'. A reader has commented, see 8/25 comment below, that the fee hikes were in most cases much higher than 6%, and in some cases reached 250% or 500%. I've looked into this a bit and found this to be true; Ebay has increased many different types of fees for items in stores, which can often add up to large increases, depending on the price of an item.

Last week Ebays largest media seller, Movie Marz, [with 1.2 million items] announced they will be pulling up their ebay stakes and moving on.

So, it's not just the little guys that get hurt by tax increases. We're all in this together.

According to the new European directive, all internet firms trading in western Europe must now charge VAT on services and products sold from their sites, if the sellers live in a European country.

The move means that seller fees will now include VAT, and eBay admitted the move to charge a sales tax could have an effect on its European business, until now one of the firm's fastest growing units.

EBay said it would increase its fees in Britain and Germany to compensate for any loss of revenue from the new laws.

This story is of interest because some of our friends on the left following these posts might believe raising taxes on small businesses, or even wealthy individuals, who often own small businesses, is not the best idea, but since corporations 'rip off' consumers and make 'excess profit', they can be taxed without overly negative consequences. However, as illustrated here, corporations just pass on the tax increases to consumers. The lesson learned is that a tax does not become less harmful when it is applied in a 'feel good' manner (such as on 'excessively' profitable energy companies). Besides, corporations can vote with their feet just as easy as eBay's former online-store owners:

Media giant AOL Time Warner has already taken steps to pre-empt the charges, setting up a new business unit in Luxembourg - a European country with a more favourable VAT rate - for its internet group AOL Europe.

These economic lessons from the internet are quite valuable, and provide an exclusive window into incentives and disincentives of human behavior and the root causes of prosperity, better said, the root causes of economic stagnation.

For example, The Pay Pal Wars is an excellent book, describing the rise of Pay Pal, which, incidentally, was founded by a libertarian, and the hyper competitive, hyper capitalistic nature of internet companies, which, luckily, are still relatively free from the heavy hand of big government. However, the back cover states:

While every Silicon Valley startup can count on fierce competition, this candid insider's account reveals that sometimes that's the least of an entrepreneur's worries! When PayPal launched its online payment service and set out to overhaul the world's currency markets, it survived the dot-com bust and weathered a competitive struggle with the auction giant eBay. But hordes of government regulators, trial lawyers, and organized crime rings soon targeted PayPal for destruction, turning its quest to make Internet history into a desperate struggle for survival.

EBAY faces a possible class action from disgruntled Australian sellers pushed out of business after the online auctioneer jacked up its merchant and other fees by as much as 500 per cent.

An online forum lists at least 250 Australian-based internet stores that have closed since the US internet auction giant hiked its fees last Monday.

The loss-making eBay traders could sue for unconscionable conduct under the Trade Practices Act, said trade practices barrister Neville Rochow.

"People have invested a great deal of trust in eBay and its cost structure and may have been induced into using the site on that basis," he said.

But, when an online store is created, the seller signs a user agreement policy, which contains the following:

Joining eBay and bidding on listed items is free. We do charge fees for using other services, such as listing items. When you list an item or use a service that has a fee you have an opportunity to review and accept the fees that you will be charged based on our Fees schedule, which we may change from time to time. Changes to that Policy are effective after we provide you with at least fourteen days' notice by posting the changes on the Site.

It seems to me this is a classic case of government attempting to sidestep a contractual agreement signed between private parties. Ebay could raise its fees 10000% and, as long as they give 14 days notice, it should be entirely legal. Predatory lawsuits like the one being filed in Australia are anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth, and, most obviously, anti-common sense.

This is an update to the post below, 'Ebay, Tax Cuts, and Capitalism'. I received some good feedback on this post from Dr. Russell Roberts, Professor of economics at George Mason University and co-owner of Cafe Hayek (an excellent site btw). The Club For Growth has also linked to this post.

I should clarify that this analysis is not meant to be critical of Ebay. Ebay is a private company and can raise fees on whomever they want as high as they want. In fact, it's entirely possible Ebay's decision was the best for the company, as their auction business is most profitable and the large number of 'mom and pop stores' were apparently a drag on their costs.

However, no one believes 'mom and pop small businesses' are a drag on the economy, in fact they are the engine of growth. And the interesting part, and key point of the previous post, was how Ebay choose to rid itself of these smaller outlets, by raising fees by 6%. Although the analogy is imperfect, the same effect is likely to occur when taxes are raised, with the smallest businesses going under first because they are most vulnerable to shifting market conditions, if one considers a tax hike a 'market condition'.

The ironic ending to this saga is that when government raises taxes, it bankrupts companies and discourages new business startups with the probable result being that it raises less overall money than if it had kept taxes neutral, or even cut them!

Hundreds of eBay Inc. merchandisers say they have closed their online storefronts, and some took their listings elsewhere, in the wake of a controversial [6%] fee increase eBay began charging earlier in the week.

This is of interest because the same phenomena occurs when government raises taxes. Substitute 'government' for eBay and 'businesses' for 'online storefronts' and it becomes more apparent how economic disaster occurs. What types of businesses are most hurt when government raises taxes?

A list of more than 700 eBay stores that have closed so far can be found on a Web site created by Melinda Burnett, an eBay seller living in Atlanta. The majority of eBay stores closing appear to be the smaller ones, just as eBay had hoped.

"A lot seem to be small, mom-and-pop type places." said David Yaskulka, the president of Harris Michael Inc. of Valley Stream, N.Y., and chairman of a committee of the Professional EBay Sellers Alliance, the main association of eBay sellers. "These are the less successful ones that see that eBay as no longer profitable because of the rate hikes."

Diligent readers will recall that in 'Settling the Small Business Hype', I described how vital small businesses are to job growth; they employ 41% of all US workers and are typically the fastest growing, hardest working, employers. Raising taxes hurts the poorest of these, the businesses just getting started, the ones in the most precarious situations, the risk takers, the poorer small business owners.

But wait a second, I thought the reason Liberals advocate tax increases was to help, not hurt the little guy? Generally, Liberals don't deny raising taxes hurts the bottom line of business, they just believe business will somehow magically 'absorb' and 'afford' the cost. But, as extrapolation of this ebay simulation indirectly illustrates, they do not 'absorb' and 'afford', they go under, file for bankruptcy, and lay off their workers, the result being that there are even more 'poor' and 'downtrodden' to take care of. Instead of aiding the poor, or making us more 'equal' by distributing wealth, liberals have instead created more poverty, by tearing down productive wealth creating members of society, creating incentives for folks to fall into poverty, and discouraging the impoverished from trying to improve their lot.

A number of former eBay merchandisers say they're shifting their listings to Amazon.com Inc. and its Google Base free classifieds listings, plus a host of other eBay competitors.

When states or cities raise taxes, there is always the opportunity to relocate, to 'vote with your feet', which is why cities like San Francisco and states like California and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have been hemorrhaging businesses and hence population. When the Federal Government raises taxes or undertakes foolish schemes like a Nationalized, excuse me, Socialized, Healthcare system, there is nowhere to run, unless, of course, you can somehow find a freer country overseas. Good luck with that....

One last point, if such damage can be created on ebay with a 'mere' 6% hike in 'taxes', imagine what is was like when Herbert Hoover:

passed the Revenue Act of 1932 which increased the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% with the aim being to restore business confidence by reducing the deficit.

Yet, we are taught in public school that it was 'excessive capitalism' and erroneous 'laissez-faire economics', which were to blame for the Great Depression.

There have been a lot of articles written about the 10th Anniversary of Welfare Reform, but this one, IMO, takes the cake.

My only complaint is that it doesn't give credit where it is most due; to the Conservative movement and the newly elected Republican Majority Congress. Despite what he says in his recent New York Times article, Clinton, deserves little or none of the credit, as he vetoed two previous bills that were written nearly the same as the final one.

Also, equally unsurprising, our friends on the left appear to have learned nothing from the results of welfare reform. The New York Times and Washington Post are still up to their old tricks. :)

I must admit, this whole idea of endorsing war by governments on each other is repulsive, to say the least, sort of like groupies cheering for bands of mafiosa criminal groups tearing down each other. In a perverse sort of way, it might even be laughable, except that it is ordinary people who get hurt, not the rulers. Despite this inherent difficulty, it is important to point out that, notwithstanding expansive government's proper seat in the crosshairs as public enemy number one, there are degrees of government and degrees of tyrannies. War is always initiated by the less free (Hezbollah/Syria/Iran) against the freer (Israel); thus those that live in the free must battle off the less free before dealing with their own government.

Still, whilst the benefits of economic and social freedoms can, generally, be stated with a great degree of confidence, verdicts on wars or conflicts between governments seem to be more difficult, as the number of variables juggled is vastly multiplied. Besides, one always has a nagging feeling deeper premises are being violated. Thus, take the opinion in 'The Israeli Lebanon Conflict', with a grain of salt.

When discussing the Middle East, there is the tendency to get lost in the convoluted histories, cultural idiosyncrasies, and/or the supposed irreducible complexities of the region. To be perfectly honest, it would best to toss all this out, or better yet, not even consider it at all. :) Sometimes there is a certain beauty to simplicity.

In theory, a government's only real duties are to defend the property of its citizens, promote liberty, and ensure equal application of the law. Thus, when Hezbollah recently kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, it is more than fair to assume Hezbollah is intruding on their liberty and property, namely their physical bodies.

Now, if Israeli citizens within Israel had committed the kidnapping, the Israeli government would be responsible for using all methods within the law to bring the guilty parties to justice via the criminal system. If bandits from another country were responsible, the situation would be more complex, as Israel would expect that country to do all in its power to investigate the criminal act. Mexico and the United States frequently cooperate and prosecute cross border activity.

However, Hezbollah is a sovereign government, which planned the kidnapping and publicly gave it their full support. Thus, it is the duty of any moral government, hopefully at the bequest of their citizens, to defend their citizens and consider such an attack an act of war. It might be argued that Hezbollah is not a sovereign government, as the area they control is under the jurisdiction of the government of Lebanon. But, here we are again descending into misleading diplomatic jargonspeak and gobbledygook legalese. Jurisdiction is a useless term as it deals only in the theoretical. The physical control of southern Lebanon is under the entire control of Hezbollah and thus it must be considered a sovereign government.

So, it follows that Israel has the responsibility to retaliate with the lethal use of force (the only monopoly government should have) against Hezbollah until the soldiers are returned or until Hezbollah is destroyed. But who controls Hezbollah? Hezbollah was created, funded, and is currently armed and supported by Syria and Iran. In fact, it might be more accurate to say Syria and Iran share sovereignty over southern Lebanon. The strange discrepancies between the jurisdiction and control of southern Lebanon is due to assaults on the sovereignty of Lebanon by Syria and Iran, through their proxy, Hezbollah.

The reasons for these meddlings have already been outlined in 'Middle Eastern Governments and Causes of Terrorism'; the tyrannies imposed on the Iranian and Syrian people by their respective criminal governments are made more tolerable via state creation of 'external enemies'; although, it has been pointed out that it is possible some of these leaders are delusional enough to believe their own propaganda.

Israel is therefore fully justified in attacking and eliminating Syria and Iran, unless those countries renounce and end support for Hezbollah's kidnapping of the Israeli citizens.

But, isn't this an extreme response? Two soldiers are kidnapped and thousands die in a massive war? Isn't the response 'disproportionate'?

Well, what is the alternative? To allow a sovereign government to seize the liberty and destroy the property of the citizens of another sovereign government? If liberty and property are not respected the only result can be more violence and death than if righteousness is upheld.

If Hezbollah (Syria/Iran) apologizes, reforms, and the soldiers are returned, shouldn't Israel end its attacks? Of course, the answer is yes; if the attacks continued Israel would become the aggressor. However, if repeated terrorism, kidnapping, and, killings become the norm, as has been the case with Hezbollah, it is Israel's duty to destroy Hezbollah and its sponsors, accepting nothing less than unconditional surrender.

Upon victory, which will be Israel's as it is a freer country with the resulting greater economic output and greater industrial/military production capabilities, Israel should establish a despotic military government with an appointed general as governor of the conquered territories whilst a new constitution is written and a representative free constitution and government is formed. Israeli troops should remain present for years to come to ensure no backsliding of liberty occurs. The result will be a lasting peace.

I recognize this solution is not a mainstream position. :) But historically it is how lasting peace has been attained. World War II, a total defeat of Germany, a total defeat of Japan, brought those countries to experience great freedoms and prosperities. In World War I, a partial defeat of Germany, where they 'negotiated' a false peace resulted in the opposite of the peacemakers intentions.

Obviously, as any student of Middle East history knows, this pattern has never occurred in the Middle East. Israel will not defeat its enemies! It has been tormented by the criminal Middle Eastern governments, terrorism, the anti-Israel United Nations, the biased media, and its own population influenced by the aforementioned. There has been 50 years of 'wars', if you can even call them that, endless talk and negotiations with terrorists, thugs, and criminals, and Israel has been played by every one of them like a puppet. It has consistently been put in untenable positions, even by its chief ally, us, the United States. The result and reality is that Israel has not been permitted to defend its own citizens. Could you imagine if the Mexican government, funded by the Soviet Union, committed terrorist acts against American citizens, launched rockets into Texas, kidnapped American citizens, and then in retaliation we sort of fudgepudged around northern Mexico for a bit, agreed to a cease-fire, sat down to 'talk' with the terrorists, and then were criticized by the United Nations for our 'disproportionate response'? I don't think this analogy is a stretch at all.

The critics are right about one thing: there is a 'disproportionate response' and it is Israel's.

A government school teacher burned a flag, creatively engaging students in a Social Studies lesson.

he burned small flags in two classes Friday and asked students to write an opinion paper about it, according Lauren Roberts, a spokeswoman for Jefferson County Public Schools

I wonder how this teacher could possibly stray from the state written curriculum handed to him by government bureaucrats posing as education experts. Did he think of the consequences?

The district is examining whether the demonstration endangered students and whether it was appropriate, Roberts said...Holden, a teacher in the school district since 1979, remained on non-instructional duties. On Tuesday, he declined to comment through a school district official. "Certainly we’re concerned about the safety aspect,” Roberts said, along with "the judgment of using that type of demonstration in a class.”

This bring two very interesting issues to mind: a possible flag burning amendment and government schooling. Let us examine a limited government approach to each. With flag burning, the issue seems simple - the government should not decide if a person may or may not burn his/her own property. Flag burning, though, is usually used as a political statement, and done so during demonstrations. And as such, it must be protected under free speech.

As far as government schooling goes, imagine (for the sake of argument), there were no public schools (as was intended at the inception of America). If schooling was only private, then no taxpayer money would go to this flag burning teacher's salary. Therefore, the public would not have a say in what should become of him. Only the school managers, parents, and students of that specific school would have a say in what they deem 'judgement'.

I don't hear many rich celebrities from Hollywood complaining about high taxes and wasteful government spending. So, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over this:

The Internal Revenue Service announced the beginning of an outreach campaign to the entertainment industry regarding the taxability of gift bags and promotional items

It seems that all of the people (rich celebrities and/or friends and family of rich celebrities) at the big time awards shows will now be taxed for receiving the famous gift bags they receive. I was reading this news story, chuckling, until I got to this part:

said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson, in a statement. "The gift basket industry has exploded, and it's important that the groups running these events keep in mind the tax consequences."

The key to that statement is '...industry...exploded...tax consequences'. Let that be a warning to all creative Americans: If you are thinking about a great new product or industry, beware of the tax penalty that will be applied to your ingenuity! And what will the taxes go to? Well, in the America we live in, it will mostly go to wealth redistribution, un-capitalistic economic policy, and welfare! Isn't that what most of the celebrities advocate?

Ok, this is hilarious. If you recall, on 7/29 I listed a whole slew of ridiculous projects that my representative, 'Republican' Jon C. Porter, had gone on the record voting for. I emailed him a link and told him I was a registered Republican voter in his district blogging unfavorably about his stealing from the American people.

Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4890. I appreciate and value your views on this issue. As you already know, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to authorize the President to propose the rescission of any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority or the rescission, in whole or in part, of any item of direct spending.

Is Porter suggesting that he supports the Presidential in-line-veto so that the President can veto his own votes for wasteful spending?!?

Heh heh... Actually I don't think that's the case, it's more likely some staffer just glanced at my email and sent out the wrong form letter.

As an aside, it is clearly stated on the letter what congressional committees Porter is a member of. One of them is the "Committee on Government Reform". Lol!

Foreign-based automakers employ 101,000 people, according to the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, a District-based lobbying group for the overseas automakers. In the next three years, these manufacturers will invest $9 billion in new factories, adding 9,000 more jobs.

The foreign car makers are non-unionized, while the parasitic unions who have control over the big 3 are bankrupting those companies. I'm stating this because the article makes little mention of this.

The U.S. companies, struggling to revive their fortunes by slashing costs, benefits and payrolls, are troubled by what they perceive as an unsympathetic ear from Congress and the White House. They say the lack of a U.S. auto policy is putting them at a disadvantage to their fast-rising foreign rivals.

Boo Hoo! The Big 3 are looking to steal from US citizens. Stealing, because gun barrel government intervention would increase car prices for all US consumers.

"If you look around the world, most countries have a version of economic patriotism," said Robert Lutz, GM vice chairman in charge of global product development. "They are proud of their own industries. The U.S. is the only major country that, if anything, has negative economic patriotism. I think some people in the United States, in leading government circles, actually detest the American automobile industry. They don't like us."

Mr. Lutz, you can count me as one of them. And as for 'patriotism'? Since when was stealing patriotic? Since when was corporate welfare patriotic? Since when was expanding Big Government patriotic?

Did you know that 'Jimmy Wales', founder of Wikipedia, is an Ayn Rand loving Libertarian?

He has since criticized Wales's approach to the project, describing Wales as "decidedly anti-elitist". Wales later took issue with this description in a C-SPAN interview, describing himself as not anti-elitist but "perhaps anti-credentialist. To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor."

The setup of Wikipedia is quite interesting. Anyone can change just about any entry, yet the people police themselves, and the work is remarkably accurate and proliferate. As James Madison said:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

The fact that Wikipedia, a reflection itself of the Internet, is able to function with little external control is, perhaps, a vindication of Wale's philosophy and an attest to the goodness of our fellow man.

A rather interesting article. In some instances it verges on conspiratorial, inferring that corporations want a dumbed-down labor force to do their work and buy their products. It traces the founding of compulsory schooling, and it is true, and a little known fact, that many of the architects, viewed the system under the auspices of statism and collectivism, with the following goals:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

What this misses is that the vast majority of the Americans did not view education this way. In fact, parents often created their own schools in the absence of government. But the generally principles and theories of national education ensconced above were and are in the minds of many of the governing elite and even among some of our fellow citizens. However, they most often describe it differently, using terms like "good citizen" and the benefits of "having a common experience", "starting from the same page", and of course, "equality".

It is well known that babies and young children develop and learn, in part, by 'modeling', imitating the parents or older persons. In public school, we are all forced into environments with persons our same age.

If children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. <.> In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren't looked upon as children at all.

One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else's. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn't know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainty not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever. <.>

Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

I've concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven't yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

India's rise has been built in large part on the quality of its education. Some of the best brains in the world—in the fields of science, information technology, medicine and engineering—emerge from the country's private institutions, along with the state-run Indian Institutes of Technology and Regional Engineering Colleges. While many of India's other public colleges are a mess—suffering from serious budget shortages, a lack of faculty talent and poor facilities—private institutions have been thriving. They've grown rapidly since the early 1990s, when India began to pay more attention to the market and parents began to realize the importance of a good technical education. Four of five engineering students now attend private colleges.

So, just like in the US, public institutions, with rare exception, are horrid, precisely because they are public. No increases in funding will change this, as the system suffers from broken feedback loops. However, last year the Congress-led coalition government passed a bill that would make it mandatory for private educational institutions to reserve at least 22.5 percent of their seats for poor, minority students—including Dalits (untouchables), tribals and other lower castes.

If implemented, such a policy would add, on top of the earlier 22%, another 28% of seats in colleges reserved for students from lower castes, making for a total of 50%.

"The bill seeks to kill higher education in India," says Syed Iqbal Hasnain, vice chancellor of state-funded Calicut University in Kerala. "It will not only make the private colleges economically unviable but make their product substandard."

Hasnain notes that private colleges buy land at market prices, invest large sums in facilities and hire talented faculty. "All this simply can't be [continued] if they have to set aside a chunk of their seats for poor students."

Hasnain is right. These socialists in India will destroy education for everyone, in their failed attempt at 'equality'. Or, perhaps they are just vote buying:

Political parties have since dangled the carrot of quotas to win political support.

Democracy fails when the rights of the minorities, ironically in this case, the upper Indian castes, are trampled upon.

But, the problem is not just government ownership of universities, aka socialism, but the more insidious government control of private universities, aka fascism. They are two sides of the same coin. Besides the destruction of Indian higher education, what else will result from these policies? A Brain Drain to countries with more freedom:

Some 150,000 are studying in the US, Britian, and Australia, spending an average of $4.5 billion a year. That's more than New Delhi's $2.0 billion budget for higher education.

The fate of the private schools is key to India's dynamic IT sector, and to the southern states where most IT firms are located. There are three times as many self-financing colleges in Tamil Nadu as public ones. Andhra Pradesh has 250 private engineering institutes, compared with barely 12 run by the government, and 33 unaided medical colleges, against 25 in the government sector. The situation is similar in Kerala and Karnataka.

I read into this issue and posted these articles to draw analogy to public policies here in the US. Of course, 'caste' and 'race' are interchangeable, just insert 'special interest group' and the patterns are the same. Affirmative Action in the US runs into the same problems as AA in India. In my opinion, any kind of affirmative actions hurts the populations it seeks to help, while limiting freedom and hence prosperity for everyone.

"That sort of coercive measure will really affect India's competitiveness," says Ram Guha, a well-regarded Indian author and historian on the subject. "We will be worse off than in the socialist economy we once used to be."

Boston-based Sherry Robartez noticed her daughter was losing joy once she entered kindergarten, but that her personality change and attitude problem disappeared once school was out for the summer. "So I pulled her out in kindergarten and started her in homeschooling," stated Robartez.

I've been meaning to write an extensive post on the Israeli/Lebanon situation, but these two videos will hopefully suffice until then:

After years of having to tell patients losing their eyesight to wet AMD that nothing could be done, doctors now can offer hope. On June 30, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Lucentis to treat wet AMD, which strikes an estimated 155,000 people a year. The approval came seven years after the drug's maker, Genentech Inc., began the first test in humans, said Dawn Kalmar, a spokesperson for the company based in San Francisco.

About 95 percent of patients regain their sight after treatment, and in some, vision gradually gets better than it was before the onset of the disease.

Let's see, 7 x 155,000 = 1,085,000 people who could have had their vision restored, but were prevented from doing so by the actions of the Federal Government of the United States via the unconstitutional FDA. But don't you folks worry, it was worth it cuz the FDA was busy 'protecting' you.

Chicago politicians passed a law forcing certain businesses to alter their labor costs.

The law was passed by a vote of 35-14 late last month. It would take 34 votes to override a veto.

Wal-Mart is on track to open its first store in the city of Chicago on the West Side next month. It plans to offer a starting wage of $7.25 an hour at that store, Simley said.

It would take a 28 percent increase to raise that starting pay to the $9.25 an hour required by the ordinance (the new Chicago law).

The law calls for a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour for Wal-Mart. Would the new law force McDonald's to raise their minimum wage? No. Why?

The new Chicago law, which affects stores that are 90,000 square feet or more, is slated to take effect next July.

Because in Chicago, the government chooses which businesses pay which employees what. In Chicago, people do not choose, on this issue, the government does.

Sometimes government, in its self-prescribed infinite knowledge, passes laws that limit freedom, and force businesses to alter business models that have been successful for them in the past. Now, I ask, when government does this, what does business do?

The decision by Wal-Mart to increase some starting wages was disclosed as Target Corp., another retailer affected by the Chicago law, is threatening to pull the plug on proposed projects in the city if the new ordinance takes effect.

In March, Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health, offered her apparent blessing for the minimum waiting times by announcing they would be "appropriate" in some cases. Amid fears about £1.27 billion of NHS debts, she expressed concern that some hospitals were so productive "they actually got ahead of what the NHS could afford". <.>

The measures also seem certain to add to the anger that erupted last week after Ipswich Hospital in Suffolk admitted it had forfeited £2.4 million because it treated patients too quickly, having already agreed a 122-day minimum waiting time with East Suffolk Primary Care Trust (PCT), its funding body.

What is surprising about this? Government routinely rewards incompetence and punishes excellence. Government planners routinely issue mindboggling orders that defy comprehension, human nature, and morality. Is the British government implying that socialized medicine is only 'affordable' if enough folks die on the waitlist...?

Pretty sweet and nicely put together. Check it out! The end of it may come off as 'anti-war', in the political sense, rather than the literal definition, but notice it is against the initiation of force by government. Government can use force (self defensively) on behalf of its citizens to defend their life, liberty, and property, when it is threatened by others.

More than 1,000 Jefferson County businesses owe sales taxes and business fees, and some say it's because they object to the county's 1 cent sales tax increase passed in 2004, said Travis Hulsey, director of the county's Department of Revenue. <.>

"Some of them say they choose not to participate to protest the sales tax." <.>

Still, some are not paying and will be pursued, he said. "When you have some who escape their tax burden it creates more of a hardship on the honest people."

Or, perhaps it's the honest folks who don't pay. :) Lol, well at least these folks haven't been arrested yet.

    I recently read a post by Travis about how social conservatives differ from his brand of libertarians.  I agree with much of what he wrote.  Travis proclaims to not be a member of any organized religion, which is fine with me, but as a practicing Catholic, I want to add a few of my thoughts on the subject.
    Sadly, most social conservatives do not realize that by using the powers of government to enact God’s will they themselves commit a sin on their own terms.  As most social conservatives are Christian, a quote from the bible is certainly appropriate:
    Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, "I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me." Jesus said to him in reply, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.'"  Luke 4:5-8
    Where many looked for a Messiah to conquer and achieve temporal power, Jesus specifically rejected that option and equated it with worshiping false gods.  A government, even a Christian government, cannot achieve good.  Only individuals can achieve good when they freely choose to do so.  The best we can hope for from government is to provide order and security so that individuals are free to choose good or choose evil.
    At that point, it is up to the faithful to try to convince others to choose good, with the understanding that as humans many will in fact choose evil.  The emphasis must be on individual choice.  Without the opportunity to choose evil there can be no opportunity to truly respond to God’s grace.
    For this reason, I think that Travis correctly differentiated between the nature of religious organizations and governments.  Religious organizations call people to choose to worship God in response to his grace.

Governments offer no such choice. Governments will enforce their laws, forcibly if necessary. This contrast between choice and power is why the separation of church and state is necessary not only to provide individuals a choice of religions, but even more importantly to avoid the corruption of the religion that happens to be ascendant.
Andrew Sullivan has been popularizing the term Christianist to describe social conservatives who hope to use government power to achieve Christian ends. This mingling of faith and government can only end up hurting both.

In principle, Conservatives and Libertarians see eye to eye in regards to economic freedom. They believe that individual Americans will collectively spend their own money much more efficiently and benefit society more than government spending. They believe burdensome regulations limit prosperity and harms business. They understand the harmfulness of socialized health care and retirement schemes.

However, there seem to be differences in scope between the two ideologies. Conservatives don't seem to have the same degree of, for lack of a better word, anti-governmentism. They don't seem to realize the degree which government spending and social programs routinely, if not always, accomplish the opposite of their intentions.

Thus, it is somewhat natural Social Conservativism should exist. Social Conservatives generally believe government is just focused on the wrong things; they believe government intervention itself is not the problem, but rather a liberal, pun intended, use of government is desirable and necessary to maintain order and increase morality in society. Incidentally, and as we might expect, Social Conservatives also tend to be the weakest along the spectrum of economic Conservatism and may also oppose free trade and immigration etc...

It goes without saying, the intentions of Social Conservatives are just as pure and good as the intentions of liberals with their collectivism and social programs. However, IMHO, the fact is that, just like liberals, Social Conservatives actually work against their own ideals; their bills and legislations accomplish the opposite of their intentions. Instead of government acting as a moral beacon, as they had hoped, it instead injects a dose of immorality into society, which varies directly with the degree of activism by the Social Conservatives. Thus, ironically, the more powerful Social Conservatives become, the further they will drive society from their goals. Of course, this is somewhat difficult to quantify as their actions may be statistically obscured by positive economic Conservatism and the resulting economic freedom. Indeed, economic freedom, for example freedom from welfarism, plays a vastly greater role in the making of a prosperous moral society, which is why Libertarians generally side with Conservatives on most issues. Still, the priorities and actions of Social Conservatives are harmful, if occasionally practically tolerable, and need to be examined and elucidated, which is the point of this piece. :)

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

Notice Justice Brown did not make the distinction of 'how' government moves in; she does not distinguish between economic and social interventions:

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, initiated by Congress in 1998, has spent more than $2 billion in taxpayers' money and matching funds producing and airing anti-marijuana advertisements, including several alleging that the use of cannabis funds international terrorist activities.

The funny thing, if you find it humorous, is that cannabis funds, and drug money in general, is tied to terrorism, as well as increases in violence and general societal destruction; but, this is not because of 'drugs' or marijuana, it is because government has made drugs and marijuana illegal! It is the very illegality of these substances that breeds the terrorism and violence! Again, government can blame only itself. Now, let's look at the results of these ads and spending:

Investigators found that viewers expressed significantly fewer negative attitudes toward marijuana after viewing the ads. No such "boomerang effect" was noted among those who viewed anti-tobacco advertising.

""It appears that ... anti-marijuana public statement announcements used in national anti-drug campaigns in the US produce immediate effects [that are the] opposite [of those] intended by the creators of this campaign," authors concluded."

The criminals and drug dealers who peddle drugs should thank the US government for advertising for them (after they thank them for the cheap labor and 'tax breaks'). The point is that this attempt by government, and Social Conservatives, whose support for this sort of action dates back to the failures of prohibition, again accomplished the opposite of their intention.

In actuality, those who have seen firsthand the scourge of drugs, who abhor drug use, who passionately care about the youth of today and the current drug problem, should be the most ardent proponents of legalization.

This sort of counterintuitiveness reminds me of the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal organization that vehemently opposed Welfare Reform in the name of 'the children', in effect working to hurt the very children they were trying to get funding and government intervention for. Their opponents were labeled as 'uncaring', 'greedy', and 'racist'.

Similarly, those opposing the Social Conservative agenda are sometimes labeled 'potheads' and 'porn lovers' and promoters of the 'homosexual agenda'. As with Welfare Reform, it becomes impossible to rationally debate a policy when your opponents are unwilling to recognize that you both share a hope for the same results and possess the same intentions.

The most unfortunate consequence of the Social Conservative movement, IMO, is that the apparent lack of understanding of how harmful the federal government is economically, has led Social Conservatives to place mistaken priority on their social agenda. This dilutes the pressure economic conservatives and libertarians can exert on politicians. It also leads to some of the silliest, ridiculous, acts of government one can imagine:

Every so often, in the hushed galleries of Congress, history unfolds in a manner that casts the momentous business of Capitol Hill in stark, even humbling relief. Then there are moments spent discussing the Whizzinator.

Onlookers stifle cackles and snickers, or try to. "People want to make this a skit on 'Saturday Night Live,' " says Rep. Joe Barton. But it's not funny, the Texas Republican says, not funny at all.

Athletes in the four major U.S. professional leagues would be subject to two-year bans for a first positive drug test under legislation proposed Tuesday that would put the sports' steroid policies under the White House drug czar.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams and most D.C. Council members say they want to ban the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors, linking the popular games to juvenile violence.

State Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether high school cheerleaders trying to flag down motorists for a car wash might run afoul of a broadly written ordinance targeting pushy Las Vegas-area prostitutes.

But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

The Senate passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schiavo's life while a federal court considers her case while House Republicans, stymied by Democrats, scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday.

GOP leaders planned a House vote just past midnight, hours after the Senate approved the bill by voice vote. President Bush rushed back from Texas for a chance to sign the measure. [which he did at 1:11am in the morning]

Can you believe it? The senior whitehouse staff, the president of the United States, and the Congress have to come back to Washington and are up all hours of the night over what was essentially a he said she said family dispute (Terri Schiavo case). This is what the Federal Government and our elected representatives consider an 'emergency'? This micromanaging and blatant intrusion of the Federal government into family matters should abhor, rather than excite Social Conservatives. What a disgrace, that this was a priority for elected officials, rather than battling the pervasive socialism that exists in the United States.

The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

1/11/2005 Washington Post (Florida 'Republican' controlled Legislature passes a law banning gay couples from adopting)

The Florida plaintiffs argued there is no reason to deny all gays the right to adopt at a time when the state lacks homes for 8,000 children.

But the state replied in its brief, "Petitioners never showed that the gay adoption provision has ever limited the number of adoptions in any statistically significant way."

This is perhaps the worst result of Social Conservative lawmaking. They seem to believe that kids are better off in a state home than with gay parents. Again, they don't understand the true enemy is the STATE! The worst place for kids to be raised is the state - by definition! This has been shown over and over again from the atrocities in Romanian and Chinese orphanages, where thousands of children grew up brain damaged, to the horrific state run orphanages here in the US. Yet, these lawmakers are somehow considered strong on 'family values' by Social Conservatives.

Speaking of 'family values', in 'Secondary Problems of Socialism', I address the issue of socialized marriage and some of the hurtful government interventions contained therin. It is the government intervention which has corrupted and harmed this sacred institution, more government intervention is not needed to fix it! The current defining and licensing of marriage by government, the pervasive tax incentives and disincentives for both marriage and single mothers, divorce laws encouraging 'gold digging', and other incentives to break apart marriage, all combine, along with welfare and other redistributionist type policies (again, economics play the greatest role), to lessen family values, to cheapen marriage, and to place it into the hands of government, rather than God.

Indeed, this is the strangest part of Social Conservatism, the religious and spiritual overtones, from which many of their beliefs and resulting legislative efforts are apparently derived. In describing the spiritual founding of the United States, I previously wrote:

Finally, they [the founders] wrote laws that removed the King and eliminated the artificial Middle-Man between the common man and God. Each man was the King of his own private property, including his physical body, and thereby only answerable to God, not government. What took place was a massive decentralization of power to the individual.

The idea that one answers to God and not government is quite a powerful one. By assuming that man can and should enforce God's will upon the people, Social Conservatives are operating on a number of faulty premises.

First, they are assuming they, and not the 'common man', are closest to God and understand His will best. This indirect condescension is analogous to the liberal intellectual who believes he can spend your money better than you. Moral currency, if you will, is best left for the common man to accumulate and spend.

Second, common sense dictates, and the scriptures of all religions pontificate, that morality is something that must be chosen, hence the apparent phenomena of free will. Forcing God, or their version of Him, on the populace, will not change hearts or minds. In fact, it may alienate investigation of many of the positive principles Social Conservatives profess. God/morality is found or chosen from within. Similarly, by forcibly confiscating money from the populace to invest in 'charity', liberals make the same mistake. In the words of Calvin Coolidge, Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Once we might have been inclined to give a quarter to a beggar. Now, however...we might tell him that the State has confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and that he might as well go to the State about it.

With government providing 'morality' for the society, what need is there for activist citizens to educate others and band together to voluntarily spread moral messages? What need is there to independently investigate right and wrong, if the government provides such 'information'? And, most importantly, who wants morality to be under political control? Heh heh... I wonder how Social Conservatives would feel if Republicans lost congress and the presidency after they decreed the Federal Government in charge of morality...

Thirdly, Social Conservatives believe that without government people are not 'good' enough or moral enough to live their lives and individually raise the level of morality in society. Liberals believe people would not donate or help those who 'need' such help if it weren't for government. Both lines of thinking are incorrect.

Fourthly, some Social Conservatives may concede most of society would be fine or even better without government coercion, yet, a small minority would 'fall through the cracks'. Thus, laws must exist to ensure the 'proper behavior' of the deviant few. Does this not sound similar to liberal rhetoric? In order to make us 'equal', in order to 'save the poorest of the poor', liberalism instead makes everyone equally miserable. Attempting to 'save' the weak by tearing down the strong ends up destroying everyone. Social Conservatives must be disciplined enough to respect the freedom and choices of the deviant few, with an understanding that pursuing cracks will bring the house down. It is how the world is and any action on the part of government will only increase this deviance.

Fifthly, this propensity to be 'outraged' and obsess about the behavior of others is symptomatic of a lack of appreciation for the wonderfulness of our society and culture, ie searching for cracks, insecurity from within, and excessive emotional attachment to cultural events (Schaivo). When liberals hear about a 'wrong' somewhere, the first thing they want to do is pass a law, confiscate some money, and get government involved.

Finally, and most controversially, as if this blend of politics and religion hasn't been controversial enough :), I need to touch on the similarities and differences between churches and governments. Let me start by stating that, although I don't belong or subscribe to any particular one (per se), I am a big fan of churches and religious organizations. From the beginning of history they have provided a needed balance and protection against the despotic power of government. From the Pope in the middle ages, to the Catholic Church in Poland and Cuba, to the, largely, protestant founders of the United States, as long as church and state remain separate (an unaddressed problem in many Muslim Countries), a church and/or religion(s) provides a powerful check and balance on runway political control.

With that said, there are similarities between governments and large organizations such as churches. A church, similar to a government, will take tithes for them, not you, to spend as they see fit. Churches have issued pronouncements of morality, which the members generally follow, relieving them of the trouble of arriving at their own conclusions, encouraging conformity, and limiting innovation. This is analogous to the government issued propaganda we are subject to in the media and public schools. Like government politicians, the leadership of churches and religious organizations may focus on numerical membership and their own positions of authority, and the importance of the message (spiritual teachings) becomes twisted to emphasize the messenger (the uniqueness of that church or preacher). There is often a certain communalism present, which manifest as both a strength and a weakness.

It cannot be stressed enough that, although comparable, these actions are vastly inferior in scale to those of governments, the main reason being that people are generally free to come and go within religions and churches. However, sometimes families, peers, and culture, act as conforming pressures to retain membership in religious organizations one may not entirely agree with. It is somewhat ironic to hear our friends on the left point out the atrocities, stagnations, doublethinks, etc... committed by churches and religious organizations, as these pale juxtaposed to the historical crimes and grievances committed by expansive government. In fact, many of these so-called crimes were the actions of church and state combined.

In any event, the aggregate effect of some of the negative connotations in churches/religious organizations may be responsible for aspects of the Social Conservative movement. This is not to say all or even most Churches or religious organizations possess the described characteristics to any significant degree. I also concede church membership can be as diverse and varied in their viewpoints and beliefs as anywhere else. Even in Churches and religious organizations penetrated by pervasive corrupting influences, it may be the case that their benefit to society and to individuals still overshadow the negatives.

In conclusion, the degrees of separation between the similarities found in Churches and religious organizations and governments are reflected in the exponential differences in erroneousness of liberalism vs Social Conservativism, whose followers generally have some vestige of the more important concept of economic freedom.

Nevada Politics, a new posting group, has been created in order to consolidate present and future posts on political happenings in Nevada and highlight 'Republican' Rep Jon Porter's porkbarreling spending/thieving. Also, I can now send Rep Porter a link informing him that a registered Republican voter is blogging about him unfavorably from within his district. :)

Andrew Roth, talented manager of the 'Club For Growth' blog, has requested that we partake in an exercise to find out and advertise how our Congresscritters feel about stealing from the American people. With $2.5 trillion dollars in Federal Spending, it is already abundantly clear they LOVE to steal from us. :) However, thanks to (R) Congressmen and CFG elected Candidate Jeff Flake, Congresspersons were forced to go on the record voting YES or NO on 19 'Flake' Amendments, which highlight some especially egregious pork. This effort to highlight the votes on these 19 amendments is gaining steam:

The Pork Scorecard is now listing 64 blogs, both conservative and liberal in ideology, that have written about 131 politicians.

So, I checked out my Congressmen (R) Jon Porter from Nevada's third district. Rep Jon Porter, a Republican?!, mind you, voted no, individually, on amendments attempting to toss out the following:

Rep Gibbons, the other Republican from NV, voted to scrap all 19 projects. Thank you sir! Of course, Rep Berkly, the Democratic Rep, voted to fund all 19 of the Amendments.

Congressman Porter, as a Nevada citizen, I thank you for taking the time to fund these initiatives so vital to the well-being of our state. I'm being sarcastic. Congressmen Porter and the rest of this sorry bunch are guilty of nothing less than outright theft. Legal stealing is no less immoral than illegal stealing, such as a mugging. :) Congressman Porter also recently voted to raise the minimum wage, another more subtle form of stealing, thus harming businesses, consumers, minorities and younger workers.

The 2006 Nevada Primary elections begin today, with general voting on August 15th. Unfortunately, no one is challenging Porter in the Republican party, but Joseph P. Silvestri is running on the Libertarian ticket. I'll bet Mr. Silvestri would be less of a thief than Jon Porter.

7/24/06 Human Events These organizations grow fat and rich thanks to special treatment from the federal government. They manipulate the political system to get insider deals, government guarantees, fixed prices and other benefits, paid for by taxpayers and consumers.

7/2/506 Newsweek A look at a new explosive phenomena that is sweeping the nation. These medical clinics are providing affordable, convenient access to healthcare. Previously, in 'AOA Advocacy' (4/8/06) I described the reaction of the medical community, which was, rather predictably, hostile. But, special interests need to provide cover for corrupt politicians to use the power of government to shut down upstart competitors and retain monopolies. 'Public Safety' is typically the slogan of choice used in the licensing/regulatory wars of the healthcare industry:

A report issued by the American Medical Association in June expressed concerns about the impact that clinics would have on physicians' practices and on patient care.

Dr. Larry Fields, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, says his group's members have also been able to weather the competition, so far though some have adapted their practices to accommodate more patients. Last month, the AAFP issued a list of "desired attributes" for retail clinic practices, recommending the use of referrals for more serious cases, electronic medical records (which can be transmitted to the patient's primary provider) and a clearly defined—and limited—scope of services. "To the credit of many of these clinics, they've endorsed the guidelines," says Fields.

Still, he worries that the walk-in clinics may be tempted to expand the range of their services as they grow. "They may want a bigger piece of the market and that's a concern," he says. "In today's complex world of healthcare, patients really need to have a medical home."

Patients need to be left to make their own choices free from coercion and condescension from Doctor organizations.

7/25/06 Fred Reed Wow, a hawkish, strongly worded attack on Universities, but there is a great deal of truth to it:

To the extent that universities actually try to teach anything, which is to say to a very limited extent, they do little more than inhibit intelligent students of inquiring mind. And they are unnecessary: The professor’s role is purely disciplinary: By threats of issuing failing grades, he ensures that the student comes to class and reads certain things. But a student who has to be forced to learn should not be in school in the first place. By making a chore of what would otherwise be a pleasure, the professor instills a lifelong loathing of study. <.>

The truth is that universities positively discourage learning. Think about it. Suppose you wanted to learn Twain. A fruitful approach might be to read Twain. The man wrote to be read, not analyzed tediously and inaccurately by begowned twits. It might help to read a life of Twain. All of this the student could do, happily, even joyously, sitting under a tree of an afternoon. This, I promise, is what Twain had in mind.

But no. The student must go to a class in American Literatue, and be asked by some pompous drone, “Now, what is Twain trying to tell us in paragraph four?” This presumes that Twain knew less well than the professor what he was trying to say, and that he couldn’t say it by himself. Not being much of a writer, the poor man needs the help of a semiliterate drab who couldn’t sell a pancake recipe to Boy’s Life. As bad, the approach suggests that the student is too dim to see the obvious or think for himself. He can’t read a book without a middleman. He probably ends by hating Twain. <.>

You learn that structure trumps performance, that existence is supposed to be dull. It prepares you to spend years on lawsuits over somebody else’s trademarks or simply going buzzbuzzbuzz in a wretched federal office. Only two weeks a year do you get to do what you want to do. This we pay for?

7/20/06 Detriot News On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day for more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study. <.>

Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998. <.>

Socialist leaders and some government officials say the rich are shirking their social responsibilities by fleeing with their millions.

Lol! Imagine a thief breaking into your house every Friday and then honestly believing you are irresponsible when you leave the neighborhood. And, recall, since rich and poor are affected equally by erroneous government policies, you can rest assured that it is not just the rich who are leaving, although, of course, I'm sure people living in countries less free than France still desire to immigrate to France.

5/24/06 Forbes It appears that Airbus's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse, which is interesting because just a few months ago the media was reporting that Boeing was getting hammered. There are significant differences between the two companies that are worth highlighting and are reflective of the differences between the United States and Europe. First, Airbus is between 15-20% state owned. This political control more than anything else is probably the root cause of Airbus's problems. Airbus has two chief executives; in order to be 'fair' they have one from France and Germany. This, IMO, dilutes the chain of command and lessens accountability. In addition, the political control results in public complaints from various government officials etc.. about where certain parts are being built and where plants are located.

Boeing, on the other hand, is privately owned and is apparently implementing a modern business model, whereby the people who are best at making products, are the ones sought out to make them. There is also the issue of subsidies, with both sides snipping at each other and going to the WTO etc..., just like what was described in the 7/24 post below with the trade talks. In the same sense, it appears the Europeans, who give direct subsidies to Airbus, are more in violation, which, of course, doesn't excuse the American side. The rhetoric was similar though, at the Airbus news conferences, Airbus execs were liable to criticize Boeing and make comparisons between the two companies, while Boeing just stuck to talking about Boeing. Psychologically speaking, this sort of thing reflects negatively on Airbus.

No one has ever built a commercial airplane with a fuselage made of plastic--more precisely, carbon fiber embedded in epoxy--much less tried to get it certified as safe to carry passengers. To keep to its timetable, Boeing is pushing the Federal Aviation Administration to apply the 5,000 standards accepted for certifying aluminum aircraft to its composite 787 months before flight testing begins. The FAA isn't saying much at this point, other than that the 787 represents a "radical way of building and certifying an aircraft."

Boeing is confident of approval. Jeffrey L. Hawk, its director of certification, says the plane's FAA certification plan, spelling out every point Boeing must meet to make the 787 airworthy, is 80% approved. Hawk hopes to finish this process by year-end so the company can begin assembling the 787 and conduct flight testing in fall 2007. "Some of this will probably have to go out for public comment," Hawk says, noting there could be ten or so exceptions, or "special conditions," where regulations need to be developed specially for the composite 787--for example, dealing with protections against lightning strikes and electromagnetic interference--as well as tougher new maintenance standards. In the Pandora's box of aviation approval, special conditions are opened up to the public, including rival Airbus, for 30 to 90 days.

What a joke the FAA is! 5000 regulations? And special ones for the 787? What interest does Boeing have in making an airplane that crashes? It would destroy their business. There is more than enough incentive for the makers of aircraft to make their airplanes safe. It wouldn't surprise me if the burdensome regulations required by the FAA result in the diminishment of technological innovation and actually serve to make the plane less safe, not to mention more expensive and delaying its entry into the market. It also wouldn't surprise me if Airbus experiences regulatory 'difficulty' with the FAA, brought about by Boeing's backdoor lobbying efforts.

7/25/06 AP Why can't private citizens of different countries conduct voluntary commerce with each other? The fact that there even needs to be 'trade talks' is indicative of the degree with which governments are perpetuating poverty and stealing from their populations. Stealing? If it costs $2.00 to buy a head of lettuce from a 'protected' American grower, but because of tariffs or taxes or just outright bans/quotas, the US government prevents a foreign grower from importing and selling a head of lettuce for $1.00, then it seems to me the US government is stealing $1.00 from each US citizen every time they buy the US lettuce. This sort of theft is very subtle, which is perhaps why they get away with it (just like they got away with 'cutting' property taxes in Jersey, while raising taxes double the relief).

Bear in mind trade and liberating government policies towards it is by far the best way to alleviate poverty and advance prosperity. So, why do people donate to charities like Oxfam and 'save the children' and who knows what other sorts of charities, which may actually perpetuate rather than reduce poverty? Why don't they give to an organization that advertises/educates/promotes free trade and limited government involvement in commerce in developing countries? Why don't they donate money to a free market think tank here in the US or pro-growth liberating politicians? Surely these efforts will result in greater movement towards their humanitarian goals. Yet our government works against this line of thought by encouraging 'traditional' charity giving through such incentives as discriminatory tax write-offs.

It is also interesting how, at least in the articles I've read on this, the Europeans are slathering the blame for this collapse on the US. Of course, the US should have zero farm subsidies, this isn't excusing us, but it does seem a bit hypocritical given that:

"The finger-pointing can't hide the fact that their average tariff is twice as high as ours and that their farm subsidies are more than three times what ours are," [US trade rep] Schwab said on a conference call.

7/22/06 AP A different story than the one I've been covering on Katie Werneke, but equally appalling.

A Virginia judge has ruled that a 16-year-old cancer patient fighting to use alternative treatment must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors feel is necessary.

The family's attorney says the judge also found the parents neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements in Mexico.
The lawyer says the parents are devastated by the new order and plan to appeal.

Regardless of outcome or objective, if it can be measured, 'rightness' of a given treatment, citizens and parents should be left free to chose treatments of their choice. The last thing we need, if we don't have it already, is a government monopoly/mandate on treatment.

After all, it is not the duty of the state to 'save lives', as any attempt to do so ironically costs lives, but rather it is the duty of the state to protect freedom and property, which, incidentally, saves lives.

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . . to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic . . . The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

Sadly, Dr Rush's fears have already come to pass. Extensive licensing laws restrict who can do what, regulatory battles occupy the time of lobbyists and legislators, and meddling healthcare legislation and regulations are destroying the health industry.

7/20/06 Washington Post At least 1.5 million Americans are sickened, injured and killed each year by avoidable errors in prescribing, dispensing and taking medications, the influential Institute of Medicine concludes in a major report released today. <.>

Inlander said that the IOM panel sought information about how many people may have died as a result of drug errors, but said the estimates were so different -- ranging from 7,000 to 50,000 a year -- that they were not included in the report. <.>

But the panel members did make clear that they believe the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA have not done enough to make information about individual drugs clear and easy for consumers to understand and caregivers to dispense.

So there you have it. A rather silly report IMO. Not silly in that I'm doubting the accuracy of it, but silly in the focus and perspective of both the authors and the journalist. Why should these sorts of things even be studied, no doubt with taxpayer money? Of what use is this information? A much more pertinent and relevant question is: How many people are injured or killed each year because of the existence of the FDA? I'll bet the number is greater than those injured or killed by 'drug errors' and any 'nonaction' by the FDA and pharm companies.

The report also addresses the issue of errors of "omission" -- medications that patients should be getting but do not. Panel co-chair J. Lyle Bootman, of the College of Pharmacy of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said yesterday that the panel believed those errors to be as widespread as other errors, but that researchers have not yet quantified the problem. Bootman said that the question of errors of omission is one of many that has to be aggressively researched so that corrective steps can be taken.

This 'errors of omission' path is another dangerous one and could lead to happenings like we saw in the post (7/21) below on Katie Weirnke.

Economist Sam Peltzman has shown that the number of new drugs approved declined precipitously after imposition 44 years ago of the effectiveness requirement. He also showed that the proportion of inefficacious drugs didn't change in wake of the added requirement, writing that the "penalties imposed by the marketplace on sellers of ineffective drugs … left little room for improvement by a regulatory agency." His conclusion has been confirmed by other researchers.

NCEs stand for New Chemical Entities, new drugs. This Peltzman chart is from fdareview.org.

Noble intentions aside, any reasonable concept of safety is at best relative. The safe use of a drug is dependant on innumerable particulars, unique to the individual. By attempting to create a safety standard for something as variable as physiology, the FDA imposes onto the marketplace a rule that is at once clumsy and constricting. <.>

Consumers are protected by a dynamic mixture of expert consultation, individual experimentation, independent and industry certification and the tort system. The FDA should be mindful of this existing system, because no one lobbies for the patients who die, or delay treatment, while waiting for a promising therapy to be approved.

I'd love to see this sort of article in the Washington Post. Don't hold your breath. :)

1/3/06 Newstarget.com It has been a while since I wrote about this, but here an update describing how a judge ruled Katie Werneke free from CPS and apparently the family has now finally been given control over her treatment. But this may be only temporary...

If you recall, on 4/23 I posted some critical commentary on President Bush's 'energy plans' for the 'masses', aka us. More specifically I said:

The article goes onto describe the burdensome changes government has foisted upon private industry, including replacing the 'deadly carcinogen' MTBE with ethanol. Now, I don't know this, but it would not surprise me in the least if the 'concern' about the 'safety' of MTBE was rooted in junk science, just like most of the rest of the stuff government tells us we should be afraid of and tries to 'protect' us from and that this initiative was pushed for and passed mainly at the urgings of the powerful farm and ethanol lobby in Washington.

I bring this up because I had a chance to do a bit of reading on MTBE, which confirmed this.

After chronic inhalation of MTBE, female rats were found to have an excess number of liver tumors (hepatocellular adenomas) at the highest MTBE concentration (8,000 parts per million). Neither male rats nor mice of either sex were found to have any excess cancers at any concentration (Bird, 1997).

The authors of this study note that the development of these cancers requires chronic exposure to toxic doses of MTBE. They assert, "because of the intense odor and taste of MTBE, humans will not tolerate either air or water concentrations sufficient to produce [similar effects]" (Mennear, 1997)

These studies and others indicate that MTBE is most likely not dangerous, should not have been banned, $140 Billion should not have been spent to clean it up, and the hundreds of other lawsuits currently active regarding the compound should be thrown out. It was found to cause cancer and other health problems in animals only after consistent exposures to incredibly high doses. This technique is commonly used in junk science. It allows layers to loot productive private companies and allows competitors to attain government issued commodity monopolies over industries.

The way these sorts of studies are designed would be the equivalent of feeding a human a halloweens night worth of sugar every day for a few months and then banning sugar. Anything in excess, especially a nonorganic chemical is going to cause problems when you feed it to rats in quantities of their own body weight!

The burden of proof should be on those trying to prove a chemical harmful, yet for some reason it seems to be the other way around. How does one go about proving a negative?

But, the more vexing question is how did MTBE even end up in our gasoline? Get this:

In 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the Clean Air Act that required refiners to add oxygenates to gasoline in order to combat air pollution. At the time, Congress and the EPA knew that MTBE would be the primary oxygenate used given supply, transportation and other difficulties with using alternatives such as ethanol. MTBE helped reduce air pollution significantly.

So, in effect, government required MTBE to be used, before banning it! Just like the old axiom, "Everything not forbidden is mandatory." This also reminds me of what occurred with folic acid. Bureaucrats refused to let private bread companies advertise that their bread was fortified with folic acid, which may help reduce certain rare birth defects, but then, some years later, the same bureaucrats, in another asinine public safety scheme, required that ALL bread be fortified with folic acid. What did MTBE replace?

Following MTBE’s approval as a gasoline component by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1979, refiners began adding MTBE to gasoline to replace tetraethyl lead (TEL), which the EPA required to be phased out because it had been identified as a source of air pollution.

Was TEL really that bad of an air pollutant? It has been labeled as the "Chernobyl of America" for causing health problems. I don't have time to keep looking this stuff up, but, again, I doubt TEL was as bad as the doomsayers claim/claimed. Of course, the makers of TEL got their pants sued off them too.

Ethanol creates similar problems, including increased emissions of acetaldehyde - a probable human carcinogen - by up to 70%.

Give it 20 years and Ethanol will be banned, after it was required, and the makers of ethanol will be sued out of business and so forth.

Now, do not misunderstand me, since the basic function of government is property protection, I recognize the necessity for legislation allowing private parties to sue other private parties when pollutants cause damage. If a neighbor of mine pours mercury all over his property, fine, but when it gets into my drinking water well I can sue him in a court of law. However, this ongoing national regulation and micromanaging of such commodities as gasoline is ridiculous. This power given to government is abused and government intervention in this area surely accomplishes the opposite of its intentions.

This pattern does not just take place with gasoline additives, this political, sociological, psychological 'culture of fear', manifests in broad swathes across every aspect of society. As you might imagine, the medical field is especially ripe for these sorts of shenanigains, a fact which I'm becoming more and more and more and more aware of.

We need to wake up to this fearmongering, made possible by the media, who seek to sell sensationalist stories, but ultimately, by the American people, who revel in and buy the rotgut that today stands for journalism and science.

If my readers will allow it :), I'd like to make another prediction. I don't know much about Bird Flu, haven't read a thing on the science behind it, but based solely on the media coverage of it, I'd be willing to bet it is just as phony and fake as anything else the fearmongers have put out there. There is no Bird Flu crisis. There is no Bird Flu danger. The emperor has no clothes!

What is actually occurring, as Bill Whittle might have said, is that we, the American People, are sitting amidst a towering citadel of spotless marble, the purest most wonderful civilization known to man, and.... we spend our time looking for cracks and in our panic to fix these nonexistent cracks, we risk destroying all that we have wrought.

7/20/06 International Herald Tribune Did you hear about this one? The Indian Mafia, I mean, the Indian Government, blocked access to thousands of blogs, after apparently meaning to only block 'two pages' of a 'hate blog'. I'm not quite sure I believe this explanation, after all, we are dealing with a poor country, and therefore their mafia of a government is more criminal than ours and not as transparent. :)

We also learn that Pakistan blocked blogspot.com in February, as a way to prevent Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad from spreading.

"You have a right to know what is being banned, and why it's being banned," she said. "I can understand if it's China or Iran or Saudi Arabia. I'm truly appalled when it's my country doing this."

I don't see what is so surprising. India's per capita income is only $640, and, since poverty is generally a direct reflection of the degree of which government suppresses and steals from its citizens, blatant government censorship and discrimination certainly doesn't seem too far fetched. To a lesser degree, similar actions and attempts have occurred in the United States.

Government censorship of websites of any kind is dangerous, counterproductive, and should be illegal.

The administration's assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate's 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

The key wording in that blurb is - "expand federal funding". Expand. More of your money spent. Now, many will say that this vote is about vital research to cure disease, and others will say it's a pro-life vs pro-choice issue. I say, where in the Constitution, does it imply that the federal government should be in the business of speculative research?

If I were in the Senate, I would have voted no. Not because stem cell research is wrong. Not because adult stem cells have shown promise, not because this issue has anything to do with the abortion debate, but because, in principle, I am against the government deciding whom should be doing speculative research. Remember, when the government votes to provide stem cell research funding, they are not creating a lab, packed with our best scientists, working vigorously to solve a problem for the betterment of society. The government is saying, we have money to hand out - who wants it? Then, people all over the United States fill out forms and ask to get taxpayer money to work on their bright stem cell idea. If you want to work on stem cell research, use your own money! If you want someone else to work on stem cell research, write them a check! That, my friends, used to be the ideology of America. That government should not choose winners and losers. That regular people had the power and freedom to do what they chose, as long as it wasn't infringing on another's rights.

If the fiscally challenged representatives of the federal government can approve of mailing your money to labs to do stem cell research, what's stopping them from sending your money to alien research or poop smelling studies?

Bored bureaucrats have been wasting their personal money on buying their kids multiple cell phones and other wireless devices. They must have noticed a way to waste some more taxpayer money, while text messaging their kid to be home before the street light comes on.

The new digital system will update the emergency alerts planned -- but never used -- during the Cold War in the event of a nuclear strike.

Cold war, eh? Wasn't the Cold War going on while I was playing Race Driver on Commodore 64?

The Homeland Security Department, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, expects to have the system working by the end of next year. Though still in its pilot stages, the system is being demonstrated Wednesday at a public television station in suburban Virginia.

I'll wait until you stop laughing after hearing that FEMA expects to have something working, and on time. LOL. What is it that the planners are planning to do?

The Association of Public Television Stations is partnering with FEMA to transmit the alerts to receiving networks ranging from wireless devices, cable TV channels and satellite radio to traditional broadcast outlets.

"Anything that can receive a text message will receive the alert," Homeland Security Department spokesman Aaron Walker said Tuesday. "We find that the new digital system is more secure, it's faster, and it enables us to reach a wide array of citizens and alert them to pending disasters."

A wireless alert system! Cell phone and beeper toting politicians decided that every time an EMERGENCY happens, they should send out a text message to every cell phone, beeper, PDA, Blackberry, and BlueTooth device in the country!

First I must ask - What would be a message worth sending? 9/11 - okay. Katrina - if you didn't know that was coming, you probably live in the woods outside of Morgantown, and you definitely don't own a cell phone. Oklahoma City Bombings - maybe. So, we can say, maybe once every decade or so, the government employee with the enormous emergency text messaging cell phone will send out the alert! Great. Now how much will it cost the hard-working American taxpayer?

The public TV stations have so far raised $1.1 billion -- a third of it from the federal government -- to convert antiquated technology at its 176 stations to digital systems that can transmit the alerts, APTS President John Lawson said. Overall, the new warning system is expected to cost $5.5 million to test and deploy nationally and $1 million annually to maintain, Walker said.

Pretty cheap - a few hundred million and then one million per year forever. So what will this multi-billion, golden cow of text message say?

For alerting regular Americans, "we're hoping that your cell phone will go off saying something bad is happening, and you need to get to a TV or radio to find out what's going on," Lawson said.

Career politicians are pondering possible future scenarios of horrible consequence concerning internet traffic..

From Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley, it's become one of the most controversial and confusing topics to hit the tech industry this year: network neutrality. The term is confusing, the ad campaigns have further clouded the issue, and it's no longer easy to tell who's for it and who's not.

Whatever becomes of the concept could affect what you pay for connectivity, the sites you'll have access to and the types of services (think video, music and Internet phone offerings) you'll be able to use.

But what is net neutrality? Ask Wikipedia, and you'll have to sped an hour to find out. Ironically, the neutrality of that Wikipedia article is disputed! In reading this paragraph, you may understand why -

A major argument in favor of network neutrality is that a discriminatory network distorts markets that depend on the network, and ultimately may slow national economic growth. For example, if a network favors search engine A over search engine B, A may become dominant even though B's technology is better. Similarly, if the network favors a usage of the network popular at a given time (say, Gopher, enormously popular in the early 1990s) that may slow the competitive arrival of a new usage (like the World Wide Web). In other words, a discriminatory network may "freeze" innovation (particularly application innovation) based on today's dominant applications.

So, the free market of the internet must be salvaged by upsetting the free market of provider - business - consumer agreements. Interesting. Is there even a problem for the government to address? I don't see any problems. Only supposed problems, and hypothetical problems, and possible future scenario problems. Let's wait for the problems to actually happen, before we try to solve them. The internet, in its current unregulated form provides the opportunity for rapid growth and innovation. I can imagine no situation where politicians (almost all who were born before computers could fit into one room) who have never downloaded a song, don't regularly shop on Amazon, don't IM each other, don't have MySpace accounts, don't create websites, don't listen to internet radio, etc etc....I can imagine no situation where they will step in and create legislation good for the internet, or us consumers.

Unfortunately, data prioritization is fiercely opposed by advocates of "Net Neutrality," who claim paradoxically that freedom and innovation demand that companies not be free to make this innovation.

A new post group 'Media Freedom' has been created for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure) :).

The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences - and the explosion of choice has left us poorer

I post this opinion piece because it goes along with the 7/13 post below on the UN and Rush Limbaugh. Basically, his point is that we have too many choices, as consumers of products, news, opinion, politics etc... He bemoans the decline of the MSM (MainStream Media) and how we are drifting apart as Americans because we don't share as many common cultural bonds.

I'd have to disagree with this author on, well, just about everything! We can have pride and common identity as Americans by virtue of our choices. The decline of the old media, the MSM, is occurring because they can't hold an audience in a free market. Blogs and new media are so popular because people recognize quality that is not present in the staid rote of the traditional press. People want to hear opinions. I don't want to hear what happened, I want to hear why you think it happened, what should be done, and who the players are and their history. Freedom is often a terrible thing to behold if the results are against your ideology and some seem to be quite scared. :)

"We learned," Kerry said to the gathering, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

Now, let's go to the wife of 8 year Democratic President Bill Clinton and potential future Democratic Presidential Nominee:

China on Sunday imposed new media restrictions designed to limit the news and other information available to Internet users, sharply restricting the scope of content that can be posted on Web sites.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the Drudgereport made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --"

MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.

So, you can see the United Nations, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, whomever was the author of this opinion piece against choice and countless other folks on the left are always dancing around this idea of limiting freedom, limiting free speech, and protecting their old media monopoly. Whether they know it or not, they are afraid of the American people. With freedom, we just don't seem to be going in a direction they deem 'wise'. But it is too late. It is us, who are changing the culture, it is us who are choosing freedom, it is us, who are winning our country back.

11/10/06 Fox News Try and picture it. A 12 year old walks into the living room, sees his mother frantically protecting the baby, and several strangers attacking his father. The 12 year old rushes out of the living room-- but comes back pointing a gun at the five suspects. As of Monday night-- all but one are in jail.

This one goes well with the previously posted story about the 87 year old grandmother and will be added to 'Guns and Crime'. Now we have the young and the old examples to go along with the 'great equalizer' theme. :) Speaking of crime, anyone see the news stories about how a crime wave is sweeping the District of Colombia, which, if it isn't obvious, has a ban on all guns. Or maybe its not so obvious, considering the frequency of armed robberies and gun battles... I guess its obviousness depends on the nature of the perceiver. :)

On the other hand, crime is at a 35 year low Florida, a state which actually lets you defend yourself against intruders with firearms, and is one of the fastest growing states in the country, due to liberating economic policies.

''This report shows that staying tough on crime works,'' Bush said. ``Law abiding citizens that have guns for protection actually probably are part of the reason we have a lower crime rate.''

7/7/06 RushLimbaugh.com Lol, this whole transcript is just too funny, check it out if you get a chance. Gotta love this pic:

However, Rush's hilarious monologue on all of this stems from this statement by Kofi Annan's chief of staff:

BROWN: The prevailing practice of seeking to use the United Nations almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. <.> Much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I meant by stealth diplomacy. The UN's role is, in effect, a secret in middle America, even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

BOLTON: And even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people, that fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant.

Now, this is true, and it is indicative of the world view held by many at the United Nations, especially as US cable TV and US talk radio are among the freest medias in the entire world. They are privately owned, privately financed, and, sure, even they are regulated too much, but this is still nothing compared to other countries and even non-cable US television, which I am still convinced is regulated in some sort of way that facilitates much of the media bias contained therin :). Whether you agree or disagree with the tone of talk radio and cable TV, you must admit they have grown purely by the merits of their programming, by the desire of the American people to hear and watch them.

Looking at the rest of the world, there is really not much free media out there. The governments of the world, I mean the mafias of the world, own and control most of it. Russia is cracking down and controlling its radio and television stations; everywhere one turns the media is largely state owned, South American, China, Africa, the Middle East, even much of Europe. The mildest state owned stations around are probably the leftist BBC, which is owned by the British government and is therefore under political control, and leftist PBS, NPR, which are owned by the US government, and also under political control.

These stations, and all the government owned media outlets around the world, are, in effect, forcefed to their respective populaces; they will exist and stay in business whether the people watch it or like it. NPR looses hundreds of millions of dollars each year, as does PBS, as does the BBC; in fact, I'd bet nearly all state owned media looses money - after all, who wants to watch something put out by a state? Who wants to watch propoganda? Sure, I listen to NPR regularly, and occasionally it is ok, although I'm not sure why it is the only talk show allowed on the PM dial, and, yeah, I watched PBS pretty regularly at one point as it was the only clear TV channel I received back when I had a TV; but, in large part, I didn't watch and listen to state media because I wanted to, I did it because there was nothing else out there. I didn't and often still don't have a choice.

Then these folks at the UN talk about how unlike in the 'US heartland', at least in the Middle East the UN is getting a fair media shake?! Nearly all, if not all, of this media is controlled by the criminal Middle Eastern Governments! Arab media, even the so-called 'independent' Al-Jazeera station, are under the direct political control of some of the worst thugs and criminals known to man. If these media outlets are saying positive things about the UN, then we really need to pay attention to what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are saying:

RUSH: The United Nations has not changed. It's still the bar scene in the first Star Wars movie. It's nothing but the vast majority of its members being tinhorn dictators and other, you know, little rug rats that are given legitimacy with their membership in the United Nations. It is an organization that seeks to fleece the American treasury. It's an organization that seeks to undermine US foreign policy, blames us for the problems of the world. <.>

And I, frankly, I don't know -- it would be difficult here, particularly in recent years, to chronicle where they've ever been helpful to us, in a real sense. My God, the UN couldn't do anything -- we are the UN when it comes to really solving problems. Otherwise they're just obstacles to everything, and it's no different than Madeleine Albright's view. They're upset that we're the lone superpower. They're upset at our prosperity. They don't think it's fair, it isn't right, and they're trying to whittle us down to size in the ways that they know best how to do.

Now, I know many of you might be thinking that there are also independent liberal newspapers and TV shows and talk shows in this country, and I'll have to agree, but the difference is that many of these are allied, ideologically and otherwise with the state owned and state controlled stations. People from the New York Times are all over PBS and NPR and vice versa. They cite each other constantly and report the news in similar fashion. Don't get me wrong, despite their affiliations, I would still trust these outlets over the state ones and there are many independent liberal media outlets that are supported by an audience. Of course, you have to wonder how much of their audience actually arrived at their thinking and thought processes independently vs how many were leached off the state media created audiences, and before you cry double standard, recall, the ideology of the state is the default one!

In retrospect, the reasons for these statements and feelings at the UN should be more than obvious - after all, these folks at the UN are sent by their governments and appointed by the collective agreement of nations all less free than our own. Thus, they are under just as much political control as the state owned medias! Why should we expect people appointed and controlled by a state(s) to respect a free press?

RUSH: You know, Mr. Snerdley still can't believe that I'm not offended by this. How many times have I told all of you? These are signs we are winning. Singled out like this, do they not have any idea what they're actually doing? What does all this really mean? It means that a free press and free talk radio are a pain in the ass to corrupt, undemocratic, dictator-loving bureaucracies like the United Nations. And they want the US government to go out and actually defend the United Nations against assaults on it being made in the free press in this country. Hey, UN, why don't you defend yourselves? If it's that easy to do, Mr. Malloch Brown, why don't you mount a famous PR campaign to defend the United Nations? The fact of the matter is this, frankly, kind of honors me, folks. My dad would not believe this.

7/9/06 Washington Post This is a great follow to the previous post. :) And is a good read. If you recall, I had a chance to meet the good congressmen a few months ago. :) I don't agree with everything he says, but most of it, especially his style and solidity of his core beliefs.

6/28/05 Washington Post lol This is an old story, that I can't believe I didn't post previously. An excellent look at what a bunch of.... I'm not really even sure what to call them... our congresscritters are. Ironic that they ask these brave and harassed entrepreneurs the very question I would ask of them (the congressmen).

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) calls them "jokers" and asks one how they can sleep at night.

Try $75,000. Of your money... Two years ago, Congress tacked a grant for the Syracuse Hall onto a larger appropriations bill covering Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development.

That 75,000 dollars (yours and mine) went to help building the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame! How do Hoya fans feel about funding an Orange Hall of Fame! LOL. Well, who called for that money? None other than Republican James T. Walsh, of New York.

"It wasn't a great deal of money," says Dan Gage, a spokesman for Rep. James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.), the congressman responsible for the funding. "There are similar projects all across the country. This was no different from what is being done elsewhere."

It wasn't a great deal of money, so that makes it okay. Sigh. Lucky for us, there are some (albeit very very very very very few) who are not happy with tax money being flung around like Gerry McNamara shooting threes, warming up for a game. Rep. Jeff Flake, from Arizona.

"It's incredibly ridiculous what we'll spend money on," says Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a vocal critic of excessive federal spending. "Pork is just out of control."

New Yorkers are learning the hard way that an initiative to keep July 4th firecrackers out of the city means just what the warning signs on the highway say: "Transport fireworks, lose your vehicle."

The NYPD has now corralled 58 vehicles under Mayor Bloomberg's fireworks crackdown, officials said.

On the eve of the nation's noisiest holiday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission responded to growing fireworks injuries by quietly reopening the question of how it should police explosives for backyard entertainment.

The notice cited a disturbing increase in injuries and a decrease in compliance with safety regulations as reasons for the first major review of commission fireworks regulations since 1976.

Without a public meeting, the three commissioners voted unanimously by ballot late Friday to begin a study of whether to tighten their regulation of fireworks, commission spokesman Scott Wolfson announced Monday. Their notice seeking public comment will appear soon in the Federal Register.

Dear Commissioners, I can save you the trouble of stealing money from us to fund your fireworks study, although I may regret this, as it is preferable to keep meddling bureaucrats busy studying rather than acting. However, hopefully your 'concern' about any present trends will be alleviated with the knowledge that tends involving a freely acting public cannot, by definition, be 'disturbing'. In addition, the less compliance there is with whatever asinine regulations you have already concocted, the better. Furthermore, I'd like it to be put in the public record that I am in favor of abolishing your commission and voting out of office the politician(s) which appointed and created your commission, as they don't seem to have sufficient understanding of the constitution.

Well, I'm back! It was an amazing month at the Yoga Ashram, although it was great to come back to the quality stories and commentary from Dobber.

I thought about writing a lengthy piece on life at a Yoga Ashram, but I'm not sure how much of interest this would be to most readers and, of course, it pays to be cognescent of the constant temptation to write gobbledygook about oneself. :)

However, being an astute political observer :), I could not help but be struck by a few happenings of interest from a political angle, which would surely be of interest to readers of this site :). Keep in mind, it is a shame to focus only on the political aspects of Ashram life, as it played only a tertiary role in the wonderful spiritual teachings and practices of the Sivananda Yoga Teachers Training course.

First, it was interesting to note what was prohibited on the Ashram due to oppressive outside laws and regulations. They had cows, but could not milk them because of pasteurizing regulations; they had ponds, but you could not swim in them because of swimming/health regulations. In addition, it is likely the Ashram could be legally shut down or fined/harassed out of business, at any time for 'technical violations' of a plethora of equally useless legislative acts. Housing/fire, minimum wage, insurance, automobile, health licensing, trespassing, were all probably violated/stretched in some way and I'm sure this list is incomplete. In truth, just about any business or organization could be shut down for various discrepancies, but since an Ashram has more broadly based activities, this was especially noticeable here.

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.

Now, you might expect that a group living with such a hammer hanging over them would be rabidly anti-government, indeed, we might expect such things of all American citizens, but like with the rest of us, it was not to be. When politics crept into the mix, it was nearly uniformly from a far left perspective: global warming hysteria, anti-corporation, anti-military, poverty hyping, colonialism, a distorted view of communism, Reagan and Bush bashing (I Bush bash for different and opposite reasons :)), and a lack of appreciation for American culture and history, .

While not overly distracting, it was mildly disturbing, because we were all learning and experiencing the amazing benefits of yoga/meditation and eastern spiritual philosophy. Since our teachers were obviously an accurate and trusted source in this area, it would be more than easy to assume that the provided political ideology is an intricate part of Yoga and is equally accurate. It is not. IMO, all the spiritual teachings and practices were fully consistent and supportive of a libertarian ideology. If one believes in freedom from the mind, then would not one also believe in freedom from government, and vice versa?

This phenomena, the mixing of politics with nonrelated objective information or goals is, unfortunately, quite common. It routinely occurs in our public schools and in the civil rights movements, peace movements etc... I bring up 'peace movements' because one of the tenants of yoga philosophy is 'ahimsa' or nonviolence. The misinterpretation, IMO, of ahimsa is perhaps the best example of the mudding of the spiritual aspects of yoga with opinion/ideology.

Ahimsa is often taken to literally mean nonviolence towards any living thing. There are Buddhists that sweep the ground when they walk so as to not kill any bugs, and there are Jains that wear a cloth over the mouth so as to not inhale even microscopic bacteria, which, incidentally, they still do. :) In other words, taken to this extreme, you may not commit violence in self defense, or even if innocents or your family members are threatened with violence. Far from being a spiritual ideal, it is sheer lunacy. In fact, such a practitioner is actually violating ahimsa, inflicting violence on others through their inaction. In the name of nonviolence, they are increasing violence? Sound familiar?

The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

In fact, Ahisma has a deeper meaning than nonviolence: non hating. Freedom from hatred/anger is a higher goal, and one also taught in the marital arts. In theory, it is possible to not hate your enemy, even to love your enemy, even as you use violence against him in order to protect yourself, loved ones, or the innocent. This freedom from the hurtful emotion of hatred increases one's discrimination, allows one to see things objectively, and ultimately increases your own morality and hence your happiness. The goal of meditation and yoga is to increase your control over these negative emotions, to enhance the higher mind and the free will that resides there.

So, the superficial and literal meaning of Ahimsa has led various yogis and traditions, including the mentioned Sivananda Yoga Ashram, to disavow all wars as evil. While war is a terrible thing, it is often necessary to keep peace in the world. Even the definition of 'war' itself is a superficial one. For example, misguided pacifists would bemoan the devastation in the Korean war, a war which liberated millions of South Koreans and halted the spread of Communism, while ignoring the constant internal wars of Communism, which has killed over 100 million people, more than all 'wars' combined. In the Soviet Union, China, and present day North Korea, there were and are wars of epic proportions being waged by the governments of those countries against their own peoples, yet, because it wasn't called 'war' or fit with our traditional definition/perceptions of 'war', the pacifists sort of shove it under the rug.

For example, in the Korean War, an estimated 3 million civilians and soldiers died. Since 1994 alone, it has been estimated that 2-3 million have died of starvation, and/or in the massive gulag/concentration camps of North Korea. How many lives have been taken by the North Korean government since the Korean war? Surely many times more than were lost in that war. A similar analysis, with a similar conclusion, was done in my review of Fahrenheit 9/11, which compared the casualties of the latest war to Saddam's grim yearly totals.

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Notice I have highlighted the word 'moral' above. It is the easiest thing in the world to become a blanket pacifist. Only with strong discrimination and strong morals can one truly practice Ahimsa.

Imagine buying a house, or some property, to settle down or retire in, and surprise surprise - the government pays you money. Ahem, excuse me - the government takes money from your neighbors and gives it to you!

Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Does Congress have time to investigate exactly where your money is going? Do they have time to make sure the hundreds of BILLIONS in farm welfare is going to struggling farmers who are working hard to provide the food we enjoy? Ha!

Mr. Matthews, an honest man, who probably never stole or lied to get ahead, wanted to do what's right and give it back. Sadly, that's not even possible.

"I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

Wrong it is. It is always wrong for the government to take money from one businessman, to give it to another businessman, so that the latter may more easily succeed than the former.

10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers.

So, Congress decided that subsidies should be eliminated. But, they decided, in their infinite knowledge, that the subsidies should be eliminated EVENTUALLY. Imagine deciding that feeding your child raw eggs should stop, but it should stop eventually. Rather than stopping now, and averting the possible death of your child, you continue to feed them until some arbitrary future moment.

Is this analogy not correct? Or, is it that the Congress People didn't want to take the binky of robbed money away from some votes! Or maybe, (beware - major conspiracy theory surfacing in my head) just maybe, they were getting some campaign contributions from some of those stinky rich land owners, speculators, and investors who liked the idea of a taxpayer funded check arriving in their mailbox the first of each month in the sparkly mailbox outside their new dream home.

Now, one would think (until they gave serious, analytical thought to the matter) that the purpose of farm subsidies, or corporate welfare, or tax credits, would be to help the little guy. Help the struggling farmer or businessman to compete with the big bullies of the business world. Of course, the exact opposite ends up happening.

The Post's nine-month investigation found farm subsidy programs that have become so all-encompassing and generous that they have taken much of the risk out of farming for the increasingly wealthy individuals who dominate it. The farm payments have also altered the landscape and culture of the Farm Belt, pushing up land prices and favoring large, wealthy operators.

"The farm policy we're pursuing now has no rhyme or reason, and we're just sending big checks to big farmers," said Gary Mitchell, now a family farmer in Kansas who was once a top aide to then-Rep. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the 1996 bill's House sponsor. "They're living off their welfare checks."

The interesting part of that statement is 'the farm policy'. Farm policy. Why would a government ever need a farm policy? Could anyone ever come up with some type of governmental policy on farming that did anything but impede farmers and/or hand out money to undeserving businessman that was taken from other citizens? Maybe next year I'll run for Congress on a "Shoelace Policy" platform.

In a huge victory for tobacco companies, the Florida Supreme Court decided hundreds of billions of dollars in fines was a little to strong...

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a record $145 billion US punitive damage award against tobacco companies for injuring smokers, saying it was excessive even though it agreed that the companies had misled the public about the dangers of cigarettes.

The court made the reasonable decision that a few thousand Floridians should not be allowed to sue for an arbitrarily calculated astronomically induced number of dollars. Seriously, what were these people thinking? They spend their lives smoking, seemingly enjoying it, and then sue the company that made their habit possible!

The court did rule that tobacco companies have been misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.

It also upheld the jury's finding that the companies were negligent in misleading the public about the dangers and addictive nature of cigarettes.

Maybe I'll try to do some research and figure out how exactly the tobacco companies were negligent, but I'm pretty skeptical about that. Are ice cream companies negligent when they claim their ice cream tastes the best?

On Sundays, I listen to Seth Grossman's radio program. Since he lives in New Jersey, and demands a responsible government for all of the money it costs him, he has been active in leading protests of the proposed budget. His beef was the tax increase. Who would disagree with him? If you lived in New Jersey, would you want to spend even more of your hard earned money on an already bloated and corrupt government?

Well, New Jersey is shut down until the budget becomes law. Police, courts, and emergency services will still operate. The essentials. Wait a minute, what else does New Jersey need? What else could possibly be affected?

shutdown forced the closure of all 12 Atlantic city casinos. Also affected, 42 state parks such as Liberty State Park in Jersey City are shut down along with all state-run beaches. It's the same for all horse racing venues controlled by the state. They too are closed for business.

Casinos and horse racing venues? Why do government employees need to be present for those to operate? I would argue that they would see their best revenue ever, without the government intruding.

State beaches? What does that even mean? I wonder how fellow surfers feel about that! What is the problem in New Jersey? This statement sums it up for me:

St. Sen. Bill Gormley, (R) Atlantic County: "Bill Gormley will vote for Jon Corzine's budget and he will vote for the sales tax. I want my people back to work in the county and I want services provided in the state of New Jersey."

A Republican will vote for the tax increase because people need government services. Wow. The ever decreasing gap between Democan and Republicrat just got that much smaller.

How much money did the federal government charge taxpayers last year to spend on pork?

The congressional watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste found that Congress spent a record $29 billion on nearly 10,000 discretionary or pork projects in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations.

29 BILLION. If the government were to take that money, and invest it with the worst financial adviser in America and only earned a 5% return, it would have enough money to write every American citizen a check for about $120. Could you use that money?

Kuwaitis voted for a new parliament on Thursday with women standing for election and casting ballots for the first time in the Gulf Arab state.

Listen to the words of this woman who is tasting that freedom for the first time.

“I don’t know how to describe my feelings, I am so happy, it’s a beautiful day as women practice their right,” female candidate Hind al-Shaikh said. “I hope a woman makes it.”

Hopefully the women will use their new power to squash the oppressive "Islamists" who currently control the government.

Men and women braved the summer heat to vote in separate polling stations as Islamists, who reject female suffrage, had demanded.

The federal government last year spent a peacetime-record $23,760 per household,”

Certainly, that number will change over the course of the next couple years. Simple question. Would all of these households be better off if that number rose, or dropped over the course of the next few years?

USA Today editorials arguing for and against taxpayers funding political campaigns. The first article starts off

go too far in trying to limit the money, and you interfere with free speech guarantees.

In a splintered ruling, the court rejected Vermont's limits on candidate spending as unconstitutional, saying they improperly restrained freedom of speech by office-seekers. The court also rejected Vermont's super-tight limits on donations to candidates, saying they were so low that challengers might not be able to mount effective campaigns to unseat incumbents.

When the government gets involved in deciding who can spend money where, the damage is done, regardless of the supposed and seeming outcome

Simple. Government should not have any say. But is this the way that governments are tending to act?

The ruling points the way to a solution, one that, happily, seems to be gaining political traction: public financing of campaigns

And is it any surprise? Politicians, who are in office, are ruling that they can use taxpayer money to finance their own campaigns! Brilliant. I've always said, offer a person a chance to be lazy, and he will be. On many levels, this is human nature. But allowing our elected leaders to use our money to finance their own campaigns?

In a huge surprise, the federal government may reverse its position on wasteful spending and begin to think about reigning it in!

A line-item veto would allow the President to "insist on greater discipline in the budget."

Maybe, just maybe, the amount of pork barrel spending projects will decrease. Of course, the real solution would be to end earmarks altogether. But this is a start.

the surface temperature of the Earth in the last few decades of the 20th century was higher than any comparable period for the past 400 years

The data also indicates that many parts of the Earth in the past 25 years were hotter than anywhere else on the globe than any other 25-year period since 900 A.D.

Oh. Sorry, I was being a little alarmist there a second ago. Of course I don't believe that Congress should do anything. On a serious note, I do not believe in the looming global warming catastrophe at all. Call me a skeptic, but the jury is still out on this one. Is the Earth getting warmer? Yes. Leading up to the Ice Age, was it getting cooler? Yes. After the Ice Age ended, was it getting warmer? Yes.

So, am I worried now, all of the sudden, that the Earth's temperature is changing? No. Luckily, plenty of other experts are skeptical as well. Professor David Bellamy, of Oxford, believes that wasting billions of taxpayer dollars is '"Poppycock!". NASA scientists think much of the global warming science and 'facts' are over exaggerated. There are hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands, of very intelligent people out there that believe the global warming controversy is POLITICAL, and not based on sound logic. Just check out the Oregon Petition Project. The Project is an effort to -

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

Do you think the 17,100 scientists, who have signed the petition, are spreading poppycock? Or do you believe big-government politicians are? Haha. That's a pretty easy guess for me.

Let me be clear though. It is not, I repeat, not, in the interest of American citizens for the size, scope, cost, and power of the federal government to increase over this issue.

I'm not a gambling man. Well, not often. But if I were, I would bet that government will base almost any gambling law against individual freedom. Since two healthy, reasonable adults are forbidden from most forms of gambling in almost every state, the internet has provided a source for their hobby. Over the past few years I've been hearing more and more about government cracking down on these sites. This activity does not surprise me. However, this is shocking:

In an article in the Seattle Times by Danny Westneat on June 17th, it is reported that a poker information site has come under fire from the state. The site, called Integrity Casino Guide, is basically an information site for other Internet users which culls different information on the poker rooms on the Web and offers other pertinent details. The owner of the site, Todd Boutte, was concerned about the new law but, since he wasn't taking any wagers on his site, figured that all would be OK.

To summarize, the Washington State government has made speech about poker illegal. In a related article, it seems Indians eager to make a good profit from a legitimate business are doing quite well.

Nationwide, Indian gambling revenue grew by 15.6 percent in 2005, even though no major casinos opened last year, according to the Indian Gaming Industry Report, which has been compiled the past five years by Southern California economist Alan Meister. It was the 10th consecutive year in which revenues increased by about 15 percent.

Interesting logic in play here. Indian tribes are allowed (rightfully so, if you honor the Constitution) to create full fledged casinos offering all types of gambling. In Washington state, home of Microsoft, it is illegal to talk about poker on a website.

Democrats are forcing the issue on a minimum wage hike. Apparently, they've never studied basic economics. I wonder if they've studied Algebra. Here is a very simple correlation, using zero mathematics, that they might be able to understand: Raising the minimum wage equals less jobs. Period. Apparently Mr. Hoyer doesn't read or understand economics.

"We think it's both the right thing and good politics," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.).

Well, he's half right - it's good politics for him to tell potential voters he'll get them more money when it will actually, by in large, do the opposite. My favorite part of the article was this blurb:

Another factor could be Congress's own pay. While the minimum wage has remained frozen, lawmakers' salaries have risen with annual cost-of-living increases keyed to what is given federal employees. And last week's vote in the House Appropriations Committee followed a floor vote days before in which the House cleared the way for members to get another increase valued at thousands of dollars annually.

Haha. Politicians lower their own salary? Or drive regular cars? Or eat at Kentucky Fried Chicken? Hahahahaha. Of course, if you are a Neoperspectives reader, you'll already know why minimum wage laws are bad for Americans, because Travis already spent a great deal of time pointing that out.
|

If you are reading this and you are a teacher and you are part of a union PLEASE comment on this question: Why did you join the union? That's it. That's all I want to know. I find the behaviors of teachers unions questionable in many ways. Rather than comment on that I'll just point out the slogan that teacher union dues paid to create:

The author of the blog goes on to joke that:

A second NEA source now tells us the slogan is actually

Great Public Schools Are a Basic Right for Every Child

It's a bad sign when your own people can't remember your slogan. Do you think NEA got its money's worth with this? I'll grant you -- it's pretty flexible:

He then goes on to make fun of the organization by doing a little word swapping:

Great. Public Schools Are a Basic, Right for Every Child or

Basic Public Schools for Every Child Are Great, Right? or

Every Child Is A Public School's. Basic, Right? Great. or

Great Child Basics Are Right for Every Public School

Well, I'm laughing. I'm sure some of my friends aren't. My main beef with teacher's unions is their constant suppression and bullying of charter and private schools. They are afraid of competition.

I must admit that I am at a loss for answers when it comes to a fairly important issue. Global warming. I just returned from Bonnaroo, where I saw an amazing My Morning Jacket performance, a slightly disappointing and very slow Radiohead performance, the best puppet show ever during Beck's show, and always rocking Phil Lesh show, and a number of other great music acts. Bonnaroo is a music and arts festival, and I definitely didn't go there for politics, but some politics was pushed into my face. Between shows at the main stage the Bonnaroo producers played some environmental political skit-movies on the enormous stage screens. Two were played most often. One featured Jack Black being bribed by a board of corporate executives to be allowed to plunder the earth only to be talked out of it by a group of children. The other had a George Bush look alike answering questions about global warming, but mocking his communication skills. Both brought cheers from the audience, but a frown from me. I can only hope that some of the others that have similar tastes in music as me, will question government handling of global warming and other environmental issues. After searching and reading I have come across nothing that I can point to as policy I would support, much less definitive evidence of a looming catastrophe. I watched the new Al Gore movie trailer, I read the Green Party's higher taxes and more powerful government power platform, I read the libertarian government is the biggest polluter opinion, I read an interesting FactCheck report, I skimmed a John McCain the environmentalist article, and I scratched my head. Well, do you have any ideas?

Ben Roethlisberger, star quarterback of the greatest football team in the world (ahh, it feels good to say that) has apologized to the organization and to the fans for not wearing a helmet while driving his motorcycle after being released from a local hospital. Ben, I was mad at you. But, I accept your apology, and will continue to cheer for you as you direct our great team to more victories and hopefully more Super Bowls. I loved seeing the Cincinnati Bengals coming to his defense:

I was not happy to see the Bengals' quarterback go down during last season's playoff game and I truly hope he recovers fully. Ben vs. Carson will provide many epic games in the future.

"They took away the (touchdown) celebrations. Now we can't enjoy ourselves outside of the facility? That's not fair," Johnson said. "If you're going to do it, do it very cautiously. If you're going to ride a bike, ride it the right way. Don't speed. Do it for enjoyment. If you're going to bungee jump, have two cords in case one snaps. I don't ride anything. I just talk trash. That's it."

Of course, Chad Johnson had something to say as well. He must talk in his sleep.

Millions of upper-income Americans refuse to buy health insurance because they're young and healthy and figure they don't need it.

Seems reasonable to me. Poor people in Kansas don't buy hurricane insurance. Probably a good decision on their part. Well, who am I to judge, it's their decision.

At its annual meeting in Chicago on Tuesday, the nation's largest doctors' group called for mandatory health insurance for anyone who makes more than five times the poverty level. That works out to $49,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a family of four.

No one would go to jail for refusing to buy coverage. The AMA instead suggested using the tax code to force compliance. There would be incentives such as tax credits for people who buy insurance and higher taxes for those who don't.

Hmm, an annual meeting of the American Medical Association, eh? I would have thought that they would be talking about better ways to provide medical care, cutting edge technologies, funny operating room stories. For some reason, they're talking about TAXES. Of course, this is just a symptom of the problem of ever-increasing size of federal government. The federal government should not be meddling with medicine. If that were the case, the AMA could spend more of its time working on medicine, because healthcare would be so affordable, everyone could enjoy its benefits.

A doctor and a bunch of so-called consumer advocates are suing Kentucky Fried Chicken.

A doctor (Dr. Arthur Hoyte) and a consumer group have sued KFC in an effort to stop the chicken chain from cooking with high-fat partially hydrogenated oil.

The fact that this even goes on in America is repulsive. Even if the 'consumer' group is laughed out of court they will have at the minimum caused Kentucky Fried Chicken to spend a bunch of money paying lawyers to work on this frivolous lawsuit. Read what the executive director has to say and see if you can find any logic whatsoever in his statement.

Michael Jacobsen, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said Louisville-based KFC parent company Yum Brands Inc. knows that other, healthier cooking products are available.

"KFC knows this, yet it recklessly puts its customers at risk of a Kentucky Fried Coronary," Jacobsen said.

Hoyte said he is suing to force KFC to change its cooking practices "for my son and others' kids, so they may have a healthier, happier, trans-fat-free future."

"If I had known that KFC uses an unnatural frying oil, and that their food was so high in trans fat, I would have reconsidered my choices," Hoyte said.

Hoyte and the consumer group are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit and asking a judge to let Hoyte represent anyone who ate at a Washington, D.C.-area KFC in 2004 and 2005. Along with stopping KFC from using oil with trans fats, they are asking for a variety of economic damages.

Does anyone go to KFC, or any fast-food restaurant, to eat healthy? I go to McDonald's and Wendy's and Whattaburger and Waffle House and KFC to eat unhealthy food. That's why it tastes good. That's why it's cheap. The "Center for Science in the Public Interest". Wow.

Providing info, ensuring companies don't lie. Okay, okay, I'm with it. But suing a company that provides its nutritional information to willing customers? Come on.
|

Sweden is the epitome of the quasi-socialist state of Europe. It was to bring all the best of capitalism, but combine it with the compassionate nanny-statism with its entitlements, welfare, cradle to grave care, free healthcare, and great skiing. So, how is Sweden doing? First let's look at where it was, 35 years ago:

35 years later, it is on the decline. The decline is getting more rapid, as it continues to tumble down the ever slippery slope of increasing welfare.

Sweden has a very simple choice to make. Reduce the size of government and scale back its total amount of welfare, or continue to experience economic decline. I feel sorry for the children being born in that country, because every day, their ability to achieve that pursuit of happiness we all crave, declines. I predict that if Sweden continues its current course, it will slip to 20th or 30th GDP in the next ten or twenty years, but that's an easy prediction to make. The question for us here in America, the still freest (yet ever declining) nation, is: Will we take notice? Will we learn their sorry lesson? Or, will we continue to increase the size of government?

The rot is alarming, not only for Sweden, but also for the U.S. If it's not careful, the U.S. will take the same well-trod path to stagnation as Sweden. That's especially true if it doesn't rein its growth in entitlement spending, bureaucracy and regulations.

The IRS needs reform. This is one of the most important yet least talked about issues. This is important because every single American citizen is affected by tax law. How many people does the Barry Bonds steroid scandal affect? Congress wastes its time working on that issue for some reason. The current system is compared to the Flat Tax and FairTax proposals. Admittedly, the assessment is very pro-FairTax (which I happen to agree with), however there is a good debate in the comments below the article.

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has signed legislation to increase the state's cigarette tax by $1 per pack effective January 1, 2007. The tax is currently 41 cents per pack.

It is my humble opinion that government should not pick and choose winners and losers among different industries. Why not increase taxes on lemonade? Why not increase taxes on plastic cup sales? Why do we allow our elected leaders to have this much power?

Of course, increasing the taxes on something by over 100% will increase the black market share of that thing, no matter what it is. Look for more smuggling of cigarettes into Texas, and less revenue for honest businessmen selling a product to willing customers. Cigarettes are bad for you? So what.

HUGE success for the United States in the hunting and elimination of that scum. Props to our boys and girls in the military and CIA and the Iraqi forces that helped bring him down! When I heard about this driving onto base this morning I was so excited I honked the horn and let out a whoo-whoo. The most perplexing thing about this whole story is the reports about his "spiritual adviser". Spiritual adviser?!? Did that guy offer a money back guarantee?

For some reason, some of our Representatives think that meddling with the auto industry hasn't happened in a while, therefore they should.

“The passenger car system has remained untouched for too long,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the committee chairman. “It's time that we require a fresh look at an old system.”

The people that are least qualified to make a policy decision about car manufacturing are starting to think about making a policy decision on car manufacturing. Of course, this is bad news for us.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., tried to require a fleetwide average of 33 miles per gallon for light trucks and passenger cars by 2015. The committee rejected the proposal by a 36-17 vote.

Let's examine that idea. You are trying to make a decision about buying car A or car B. Let's suppose car A and car B are comparable in every way - price, size, reputation, trendiness, safety, etc. Let's say car A gets 25 mpg and car B gets 35 mpg. Which would you buy? I would guess, most people would choose car B.

I think that car manufacturers know this as well. So, if two car manufacturers are competing for your business, why don't they just make their car have a better fuel economy, and make you a happy customer? Because it costs a lot of money to increase fuel economy!

The above example is fictitious, for good reason. There are no cars that are comparable in price and make and size and everything else, yet have a substantial difference in fuel economy. It's simple economics. Just check out the price you'd have to pay to get a Civic Hybrid rather than a standard Civic.

If the government mandates higher fuel economy, they mandate higher prices for all of us, and, probably more importantly, they put American manufacturers at a disadvantage to foreign competition. If Ed Markey wants the auto industry to come up with innovative ways to increase fuel economy, he should get out of the way of the engineers and businessmen that are already doing just that.

A couple weeks ago I was tailgating the car in front of me and read a hilarious bumper sticker. It read - "The Marriage Amendment is Gay". The irony is awesome. Not only is it using the evil word to describe the amendment in a negative way; the owner of the bumper sticker obviously sides with homosexuals, while using the descriptive word 'gay' in a negative way! LOL. (That's IMese for Lots of laughs, or laugh out loud, depending on which part of the country you're from.) I disagree with nearly every word that is uttered from any Kennedy's mouth, but I do agree with this:

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts

My question(s) though is even more basic. What does marriage have to do with government? Isn't marriage a religious institution? Why is the government making religious decisions for people? I believe the word marriage should appear in no legislation in the federal government. The only way shape or form I could see any government having an interest in marriage is when the government is trying to allow couples to adopt children that are in the system. But then, the government that is holding the child (state, county, municipal, what have you) should decide what policy will govern their adoption policies. This should not be a federal issue.

This article will open up a great can of worms. At least my opinion will, and I hope to read some comments telling me why I'm wrong.

In a case that could have repercussions for single-sex fitness clubs, a Sonoma County judge has ordered a Santa Rosa women's health club to open its doors to men.

Who owns the club? Whose property is it? Is it the state of California's property? Is it the state of California's club?

Judge Knoel Owen said Body Central must provide showers and lockers for men and stop advertising itself as a women-only health club. He ruled in favor of the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which sued Body Central last year for allegedly violating California's anti-discrimination law. The state agency filed the suit after Phillip Kottle of Santa Rosa complained he was denied membership at the downtown fitness center in 2003 because of his gender. On Wednesday, Kottle said Body Central allowed him to join the gym in January.

Why should someone be forced to change a completely reasonable business policy on their own property?

Kottle, who also filed a complaint against a Petaluma women's health club in 2003, said he views the case as a civil rights issue. "I have a right to go there," he said.

Why does he have a right to go there? I couldn't find it here. And under California's Constitution, section 19 seems to be relevant here:

Sec. 19. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
         papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches,
         shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable
         cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing
         the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized.

Does this pertain to the property and papers and effects of the owner of the Gym? Why is she forced to allow a person she does not see fit under the papers of her establishment to enter?

In my humble opinion, the Court has overstepped its bounds and infringed on the rights of the club owner. Anyone disagree? Feel free to answer any of the above questions. I do understand that the Court was simply interpreting the law...so I suppose it's the law that is wrong. Nonetheless...

The Washington D.C. government has asked for $750,000.00 of taxpayer money to create an Office of Baseball. This is so ridiculous it's almost funny. Almost.

Mayor Anthony Williams is asking the D.C. Council to approve $53 million in emergency spending, which includes money to create an "Office of Baseball" to oversee construction of the Nationals ballpark.

The key word there is "emergency". When I hear politicians speak, I wonder if my understanding of the English language is digressing in my old age. "Emergency". What the heck does "emergency" mean to the D.C. mayor? Are people dying? Is the economy about to whirl away in some sort of unforeseen disaster?

The mayor is asking for $750,000 to start the baseball office. He says it's needed to streamline oversight of the massive stadium project.

Oh! The emergency is that the massive stadium project must be streamlined? An office needs to be created? That begs the question: Were they going to build the stadium without an office? Or, doesn't the Washington Nationals franchise have an office? Or better yet, when the project was created, was there an "office"? Investigating further:

D.C. Council member Adrian Fenty, who is running for mayor, says the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission and the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation are already funded to oversee the baseball project.

Oh! The $750,000 is needed to solve the emergency by creating an office to oversee an office! Like the Guinness commercial - "BRILLIANT!"

This article was emailed to me by my father because one of the things we have discussed lately is the estate tax...or death tax. What you call it will probably depend on the flavor of your bumper stickers. In all honesty I really don't care much about the "inheritance tax" (it's actual name under law) because it is way, way down on my "things politicians need to do soon" list. However, debate will happen next week about possibly repealing this tax. In principle, I am against it. From the article:

On the other hand, an estate tax repeal would save the estate of Vice President Cheney between $13 million and $61 million, according to the publicly available data on his net worth. It would save the estate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld between $32 million and $101 million. The estate of retired Exxon Mobil chairman Lee Raymond would pocket a cozy $164 million. As for the late Sam Walton's kids, whose company already makes taxpayers foot the bill for the medical expenses of thousands of its employees, the cost to the government for not taxing their estates would run into the multiple billions.

I assume the author of the article, Harold Meyerson, is saying the tax repeal would add between $13 and $61 million to the amount of money received by the heirs of Mr. Cheney's estate in the event of his death, if the tax is repealed. So what?

Interestingly he adds the last sentence of the paragraph about Sam Walton's kids. The fallacies in this statement are obvious. Wal-Mart does not "make taxpayers foot the bill" for anything! Does Wal-Mart, or any of its employees ever come to your house with a gun saying "pay for so and so's Prozac or go to jail". NO. The United States government does that. Our elected leader have decided that one American citizen will be forced to pay for another citizen's hospital visits, prescription drugs, etc. But this has nothing to do with the Inheritance Tax debate, does it? No. Mr. Meyerson please stay on topic.

Well, I got past the comma of the same sentence and Mr. Meyerson is back to the estate of the Walton family, but he throws in another fallacious phrase. He says "the cost to the government..." It does not "cost" the government anything to not tax an estate. Cutting taxes is not a "cost" to the government. I only took three credit hours of economics in college, but I did get that much out of it. As far as economics goes with any government, it does two things: raise revenue and then spend the money. When we are discussing taxes, we are talking about raising revenue. This is not a "cost". "Cost" would be how the revenue is spent. I could go on all day, actually all weekend, about the second part - how the government wastes our money. But that is not the issue, so I'll refrain from mentioning anything on a different topic of argument, unlike Mr. Meyerson.

Why am I against the death tax? Simple. I agree with Wikipedia's characterization of opposition to it:

Some argue that the estate tax creates a potential for double and triple taxation, that is, taxation on assets which have already been taxed. Double taxation occurs on earned income, and by imposing capital gains tax on the returns after earned income is reinvested in new ventures, stocks, bonds,and savings. The estate tax would then add an additional tax upon the two previous taxes netting a triple taxation of earned income.

Now, you may bring up a valid point of cutting taxes during times of enormous deficits. I am against lowering taxes during enormous deficits...so I guess I wouldn't repeal it today, but I would next week. Like I said earlier, repealing the estate tax is not on my long list of what our lawmakers need to do now. After a couple seconds of thinking, I came up with a quick to-do list for Congress - The order of operations should be - 1. Curb spending and shrink government. 2. Lower your own salaries. 3. Fire a ton of government workers. 4. Only lease Cavaliers to drive around, not luxury cars. 5. Lower taxes. 6. Repeal Death Tax. Whomever runs on that platform in November will receive my support here in Florida. Say, is anyone running on that platform?

Governments all over the country have been busy robbing private citizen's land, in order to give it to other private citizens. So, eminent domain rulings this day and age are of no surprise. In this instance, a New Jersey farmer is being robbed of part of his farmlands to create.....ready for this.....WETLANDS.

The state will use eminent do main to seize more than 17 acres of a working farm in Washington Township to offset wetlands lost because of road projects miles away in Sussex County.

Poor farmer will lose his own private land, because of road projects miles away? Huh? Well, this is the law behind the act:

Spokeswoman Elaine Makatura said the DEP, which requires the creation of new wetlands when they are disturbed, gave DOT a permit to destroy wetlands in Sussex County.

Did the farmer whose property is being seized "disturb any wetlands"? No. But he must feel very good about the fair process of doing thorough research on which land to steal:

DOT spokeswoman Erin Phalon said the DOT "selected that location after studying various locations and working with DEP to determine which land is most suitable."

Is this the America you love? Where your land can be robbed by bureaucrats sitting around playing a real life game of SIMS - Land Development? If you're not worried, just ask people in Connecticut , Florida, California, North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois ... I could go on but I'm getting depressed. Many of these cases are using the same logic used by Justice John Paul Stevens in the case in New London, Connecticut last year:

In the 2005 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London Justice John Paul Stevens, in rationalizing the taking of private property for use by private developers – as opposed to the classical interpretation of the Fifth Amendment in which eminent domain may only be invoked if the confiscated land is to be taken for public use – wrote: "For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power…. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."

When I read that I have to pinch myself! Yes, I am awake. Yes, that is real! Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government? Since when? Governments do not promote economic development. By their very nature they can only impede it. They only promote economic development by getting out of the way. They only promote it by relaxing harmful laws they foolishly passed in the first place. They only promote it by shrinking themselves, and allowing more of the money to stay in the hands of the people. Just ask our friends across the pond if they agree.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Wow. How nice of the Florida government and Jeb Bush to allow private citizens the courtesy of making a completely reasonable policy on their own property in their own private business. For people who believe in property rights, don't get too high on your horse...

That's a bubble buster. We'll see how many counties and cities respect supposed property rights. But this is the clincher:

and then even if local restrictions were waived to allow it, it would still be up to the restaurant owner as to whether to participate.

What???!?!?!? Allow property owners to decide for themselves? No, they need the government to decide for them. That's why there was a law in the first place. The restaurant owners needed the government to make the law because they couldn't figure out sound business practices for themselves. That's why many cities and states are making it a crime to smoke a cigarette in your own restaurant on your own property!

I regret to inform you that I will be taking over this site for the next month. Just joking. I do not regret it, in fact I am excited for the fun we'll have; and I'm honored that Travis trusted me enough for this tremendous responsibility. I guess I'll just take a quick minute to introduce myself. My name is Geoff Dobson and I go by Dobber. I'm originally from Pittsburgh, PA, home of the Super Bowl champs! Currently I live in Ft Walton Beach Florida, where I serve in the Air Force stationed at Eglin Air Force Base. I met Travis about six years ago while we were both spending our summer (and some subsequent summers) lifeguarding the Atlantic Ocean waters of Ocean City, MD. We ended up living together a few summers and have been friends ever since. We have a lot in common. Once (around the time we lived together) when we were young and naive we were huge liberals. After reading and investigating, we both came to the conclusion, while living hundreds of miles away from each other, that the reason our nation is the greatest in the world, is because it exists based on principles of liberty, property rights, limited government, and freedom. We also both agree that the current direction of the nation's policies and laws is in the exact opposite direction that our founders envisioned. That is, nearly daily, we are moving farther and farther away from the principles that the first Americans were willing to fight and die for. Limited Government. Well, I hope that this website continues to attract readers, and I hope that you all enjoy what I present and write about. Please comment. Also, I hope Travis comes back in a month safe and sound, and his website hasn't gone up in flames.

I regret to inform you that I will be taking a month long hiatus from neoperspectives and the rough and tumble world of political discourse in order to attend a Yoga/Meditation retreat in Woodbourne NY. Here, in a secluded ranch, we will learn learn to discipline and focus the mind and strengthen the body and spirit and become liberal. (I'm kidding about the last part) :) But in all seriousness I am really looking forward to it.

Hopefully this will also spur me to finish the oft mentioned 'meditation paper' I've been neglecting, which will come out by the end of the summer.

However, I am happy to inform you that Geoff Dobson, also known as Dobber, not sure what he will call himself, or if he wants his name public :), will be taking over this site for the next month and will hopefully agree to become a full contributor/partner to this site. Some of you may remember Dobber from his contributing piece 'Observations From a Former Charter School Employee', which was added to 'A Charter School Tale'. Dobber has had experience operating his own blog, which also marched to a libertarian beat.

In any case, you can rest assured the output from neoperspectives.com will remain of the highest quality. :) Dobber will also be looking at ways to make the site more aesthetically pleasing, to put it mildly, and has some good ideas for other improvements.

I've found myself pondering this so-called 'problem' of 'illegal' immigration of late, and suddenly was struck by the simple, yet retrospectively obvious, solution: amnesty from government. The only way us legals can achieve this desperately needed amnesty from government is by become 'illegal'.

As President Kennedy might have said: "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Soy un inmigrante ilegal.""

Just think of the benefits! No Social Security taxes, no Medicaid, Medicare, Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, Selective Service, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few! How much greater would our health and retirement benefits be without government throwing us in jail if we don't roll over and let them 'arrange' them for us? The only taxes left to pay might be smallish sales taxes here and there and once again, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it [would] be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?

Imagine if businesses could return to voluntarily contracting with their employees and discard the hurtful government coerced workers compensation programs? Think how much more they would be able to pay us! Businesses could also, if they so choose and their employees acquiesced, ignore burdensome 'safety' regulations, bureaucratic red tape, many worker related litigations, and Union regulations/labor laws. These possibilities would all doubtlessly equate to large increase in our salaries and reduced the prices of our consumer goods.

In conclusion, the benefits to us, the American worker, of becoming 'illegal' are more than clear. So, let us take to heart the lessons the present "illegal" immigrants have taught us, stand up for freedom, and lead our nation into the 21st century, creating an orgy of economic growth and prosperity unlike any the world has ever seen. And of course, as Americans always have, we'll do it by sticking it to government.

But wait!, you say, that is it? You're through? This is your solution to the immigration problem? Sure, it all sounds great, but it only deals with us. What about them? What are we going to do about the 12+ million undocumented illegals already in the United States and the many more continuously flowing in?

Well, I'm not sure I understand the question. It is the legals, us, who are the problem, we are the ones who have fallen into err; so what is there to do that 'needs doing' to the 'illegals'? From whence does this urge to 'do something' about others arise? History has showed the greatest catastrophes have occurred not when free peoples act in their self interest, but when men try to rule other men, via ever expansive and oppressive government. Besides, since we are now all 'illegal', I'm not quite sure who 'they' are anymore.

Let me now ask you some questions. Did 'they', the illegals, voluntarily choose to take incredible risks to immigrate to a country they knew little or nothing about, sometimes knowing no one, often flat broke or in debt, and perhaps not even knowing the language? Were 'they' voluntarily hired by employers here and did 'they' voluntarily agree to be employed by those employers for an agreed upon amount? Do 'they' voluntarily rent or own shelter and do these persons who sell or rent to them do so voluntarily? When 'they' go to the store and buy consumer goods do 'they' voluntarily choose their purchases and do these stores voluntarily choose to sell to them? Since 'they' are doing all these things voluntarily, with the full consent of those around them, please explain what business of it is 'yours'? As Ayn Rand might have said:

If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it.

But, you protest, it is my concern because my wages are being driven down by illegal immigration, and my job is threatened.

Boo hoo! You sound almost like a Union member bashing Wal-Mart. Why is it that you require government to protect your job or your wage? If your own skill, hard work, diligence, and talent do not intrinsically define your individual value in a position of employment, then you probably didn't deserve the job in the first place.

Regardless, I'd bet it could be shown by facts and figures that restrictions on immigration, illegal or otherwise, cost Americans jobs and lowers our salaries:

The U.S. used up its supply of 65,000 temporary visas for skilled foreign workers in a single day.

At first glance, one might think that these incoming workers will lower the salaries of American 'skilled' workers who are now competing with these foreign workers for the available jobs. This flawed reasoning can be traced to the faulty premise inferring there are only a set number of 'skilled' jobs available. Just like our friends on the left believe there is only a fixed amount of wealth and resources available to society, which need to be 'equally divided' among the populace, ignoring the fact that wealth creation is dynamic and correlated with liberating governmental policies.

Besides, companies will get around government imposed barriers in order to get the most talented labor for the best cost. If the talent cannot come to the company, the company will go the talent and there will be a drastic increase in outsourcing. And the American workers previously employed by the relocating company? Now they have no job. Funny how those in favor of expanding government to restrict immigration also tend to be in favor of expanding government to restrict trade and outsourcing. It's like drilling a hole in a boat and then bailing the water out!

We must also consider that someone will need to train, integrate, and manage the foreign worker as he begins work for the company. Who better for this task than the American worker? As these companies prosper, by hiring cheaper and more available labor, those already with the company, ie the American worker, will have opportunity for advancement. With more efficient and profitable companies, the resulting drop in price of consumer goods is a boon to all Americans, along with the added purchasing power of the immigrants and higher real estate prices.

In this case, the above brief analysis was done with high tech workers, but it bodes true for any immigrant, migrant, 'illegal' or legal, who comes to the United States.

Now, it has also been said that we must be 'concerned' because 'illegal' immigrants are costing us, the US taxpayer, a great deal of money. First, this is patently untrue. Study, after Study, after Study, after Study, not to mention common sense, have shown that immigrants, legal or 'illegal', contribute more to 'society' than they receive, especially in the case of the so-called migrant worker. Some studies have concluded there is often an increased burden on state governments, as most taxes go to the Federal government, while many 'services' are provided by the state; but this is a problem of the ever expansive and overreaching Federal Government, not immigration.

Which group costs American taxpayers the most money? Legal Americans, especially those in poverty with children. Again, it is us, the legals, who represent the problem! However, as documented, this government spending itself is largely the very reason for poverty! If immigrants, 'illegal' or otherwise, and even our own citizens, can escape our government's crushing attempts to help them, chances are they will be free from poverty and become prosperous contributing citizens.

Secondly, and most importantly, all of the above completely misses the point. Even if it were true that immigrants, 'illegal' or otherwise, placed an undo burden on taxpayers, the whole issue is a secondary problem of socialism, not of immigration! If a thief stole your money and gave it to a third party, would you be angry at the third party? No! You'd be angry at the thief, which, in this case, as in so many others, is government.

Thirdly, even if it were the case that immigrants placed an economic burden on society and even if these problems resulted from immigration, not socialism, I would still argue against passing restrictive immigration laws because of the innate dangers directly associated with the expanding power and growth of government.

Since government, as a political institution, is never a neutral party, the power to regulate immigration will and has become corrupted, with politicians and bureaucrats quickly succumbing to the temptation to pick winners and losers in industries and fall sway to corrupting foreign influences and foreign policy considerations.

For example, in the posted news story above there were visas available for 'skilled' workers and I'd bet the definition of 'skilled' is worth big bucks to some industries, which politicians can now shake down for funds. Similarly, before Sept 11th, Saudi citizens enjoyed a program called: "Visa Express," an unprecedented program that literally delegated visa processing to travel agents to speed it up. The basic legal requirement that applicants provide accurate and persuasive information was ignored.

This program existed because of intensive bipartisan Saudi lobbying of US officials and generous financial gifts to presidential libraries, speaking fees, and think tank salaries.

Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg thrust himself into the national immigration debate Wednesday, advocating a plan that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers.

Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said a DNA or fingerprint database "doesn't sound like the free society we think we're living in."

"It will inevitably be used not just by employers but by law enforcement, government agencies, schools and all over the private sector," she said.

This corrupting influence and abuse of power by government, injecting society with immorality and staining our culture, should be fought at every turn. Arguably, terrorism checks and protections should be the only immigration related power allowed to government and even this should be closely monitored for signs of abuse.

So, imagine my surprise to see this headline from one of the leaders of the conservative movement:

Make no mistake, folks, this is the expansion of government on parade. This is the importation of new people in poverty necessitating an expansion of the safety net and expansion in tax rates to pay for it. Another transfer of wealth and an expansion of government in order to accomplish all this, thereby cementing even more dependency among these new arrivals.

Of course, precisely the opposite is true! As aforementioned, the more immigration is regulated and restricted the more government expansion is necessary and needed.

Increases in immigration no more result in poverty than an increases in college graduates would. Both groups start with empty pockets or in debt and then gradually work their way to prosperity. The same process occurs with folks working at minimum wage jobs, which serve most often as stepping stones to higher paying positions. It may be true that American born college graduates, statistically speaking, will become wealthier in the long term, although the reasons for this are debatable, but this doesn't take away from the overall picture of immigrant advancement. We know this to be true because all of us, the legals, came from immigrants!

Rush has, correctly, argued against attempts to raise the minimum wage and has denounced onerous legislations such as the Family Medical Leave Act, which also places burdens on employers. In addition, he has argued in favor of free trade, noting it's clear benefits and recognizing expansive government is necessary to restrict it. The arguments for free trade and immigration run parallel, in fact, it would be accurate to categorize immigration as a free trade issue. Little wonder then that the vocal Buchananite wing of the Republican party supports neither, but it is certainly surprising to hear people like Rush and Thomas Sowell repeatedly contradict themselves on this issue and even, in Limbaugh's case, stoop to bashing big business!

It's about big business! It's about big business, and everybody that has any experience at all, the objective of any business is to keep costs down as much as practicable, and you know what it's like trying to get a raise. Every trick in the book will be tried on you to say you don't deserve it or, "You don't like the job? We can find somebody else to do it for you."

In my humble opinion, the worst part about this 'Conservative' outrage over immigration is the apparent lack of understanding over what it fundamentally represents. The United States is the freest and hence the most prosperous and moral nation in the history of the world. Despite my constant denunciations of our present criminal government, I can at least maintain the proper perspective that we have it better than anywhere else. Our government is smaller and our citizens more vigilant in their protection of liberty than anywhere else on earth.

It is for these reasons we have had wave after wave of immigrants from all over the world flocking to the United States. People vote with their feet, fleeing socialism, collectivism, tyranny, corruption, and all other forms of government imposed wackosim :), and seek refuge in capitalism, freedom, and Conservatism/Libertarianism. The more Conservative/Libertarian a country's policies, the greater its attractiveness for prospective immigrants!

Immigrants do not come here for higher minimum wages, universal health care, worker protections, higher taxes, more regulation, more lawsuits, or bigger government. Whether they know it or not at the time, people flee those policies, leaving them behind in their home countries. Why do many in the Conservative movement apparently not have pride in the reasons for which these immigration 'problems' exists?

Unfortunately, this engraving is often misinterpreted. While, it is true that many immigrants, especially 'illegals' are poor when they arrive, 'wretched refuse' is hardly an apt description. These immigrants are brave, they are bold, they are courageous, they are risk taking, they are imaginative, they are actively self interested in making better lives for themselves and their families. And what became of those timid souls that stayed in their home countries and rotted in poverty, enduring socialism under the worst type of criminals known to man? What choice would you make?

There are those who patiently waited years and years in line for a legal visa and there are those who didn't. Then, there are those, the 'illegals', who said, "to heck with the law, to heck with my criminal government, to heck with the Federal Government of the United States, I'm going to get mine, I'm going to improve my lot, I'm going to the USA, and I'm not waiting." What choice would you make?

This dogged self interest, along with individual freedom, the equal application of law, and a 'don't tread on me attitude', is what has kept the United States relatively free of government domination and tyranny. As author Ayn Rand said:
America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes.

Some believe not 'doing something' about the 'illegals' is a slap in the face to the legal immigrants who dutifully obeyed the law. I don't make this distinction. If anything, it is the 'illegals' who have demonstrated their distaste for authority, their distrust of government, and their disdain for immoral laws. I trust they will make good Americans.

You see, as previously stated, I don't believe there are many laws of government that deserve our respect or obedience. A law should be obeyed not because it is 'a law', but because it is morally correct. It's hard to argue that restrictions on the movement of free persons and limits on self determination meet any moral standard.

Immigration is what has made our country great and the desire to immigrate here is reflective of our greatness. For over 200 years, various domestic elements have respectively favored restricting immigration on all groups or various selected groups such as Irish, Poles, Italians, Jews, Blacks, and Chinese. The dire predictions and sometimes accompanying prejudices towards these groups turned out to be dead wrong. There is no reason to think the recent surge of Hispanic Americans will differ in any significant way from their historical brethren. And, I do not mean to imply anti-immigration forces are intolerant or racist or any of the other accusatory rotgut ginned up by the left. They are simply mistaken and ignorant. Some 'Conservatives' oppose immigration based on the notion that these persons will become Democratic voters. In time, I'd say the opposite will surely be the truth, for those seeking liberty will vote for what they have sought. Whether the Republican party will still represent what we are looking for is the more pertinent question...

Perhaps these 'Conservatives' would do best to remember the concluding words from Ronald Reagan's 1988 farewell speech:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

Most sweeping changes since Great Depression Proposal will give the Federal Reserve new regulatory power MSNBC ^ | March. 28, 2008 | AP writer

Waxman regrets Clemens-McNamee hearing

Resolution:

References

Most sweeping changes since Great Depression Proposal will give the Federal Reserve new regulatory power
MSNBC ^ | March. 28, 2008 | AP writer