Life Works!

American Justice

2005-04-06T13:31:00.000-07:00

So I had to go to court Tuesday. A little background....

I was spraying an apartment complex for bugs when I ran into some white trash scum that the capitol of Illinois spreads throughout these welfare apartments in Central Illinois. It's supposed to "acclimate" them to normal life. Instead it "acclimates" the unwary parent's kids to the joys of AIDS and low-quality, high powered Meth.

So this ugly wench, call her Maw Trash, was upset with me because she had declined service last time, and I had reported this to the manager, who then wrote her up. She gave me crap for a bit, then when I declined any further crap, she called up some guy and passed me the phone.

So I say, "Yes?", and he gives me all this hilarious shit about how he's coming over to teach me a lesson. Bored at the lack of novelty of it all, and not enjoying the squalid hospitality of this wench, I hung up and told her that I was marking her as having "declined service", and that she'd be evicted.

Then went about my rounds.

Soon, her old husband Paw Trash came by, and wanted to start trouble. He wanted me to tell the manager that I had sprayed the woman's apartment, but I declined. Then he went off to try to get me in trouble with the manager.

Not that this did much good. I grew up here, so did she, neither of us have enjoyed seeing Chicago's trash littered about rural Illinois. She listened, then told him that as service was declined, Maw Trash was to be evicted.

He went off to Maw Trash's apartment, and the manager and I went about the rest of the rounds.

But when we came out, there was Trash Jr., all 6'4'' 250 pounds of righteous wrath, looking for Landlord ass to chew. So he comes striding over, swearing up a storm and wants to give her a piece of his mind. Fortunately for me, 50 pounds of it was beer belly.

I intervened, and let him know that the cops would be called and he should back off. He did, still yelling and such, and her and I retired to her office. Where she called the cops to have him arrested.

Which would be pretty hard, since while morally he had done great wrong, we had him on little more then menacing and disturbing the peace. But she wanted to be able to tresspass him more conveniently, and to get the others evicted, so that worked.

The police came by, and he was arrested. And RoR'd, it being too small a charge.

Well, it so happens the guy is minor muscle (read "glorified mule") for some who enjoy making meth with handy kitchen and farm supplies. So it was decided to prosecute him for nuisance value. It was expected that he'd plead.

He didn't, but asked for a bench trial.

The wheels of justice turning so swiftly, and his right to a speedy trial so guaranteed, we went from October 30th of 2004 to April 5th of 2005 before this trial. Which brings us to now.

Monday, I did call to see if they'd actually still need me as a witness. I figured he had plead out, but nope, it was still on. I said to the State's Attorney, "My driving time will likely be longer then what he can be sentenced to!", to which he laughed and agreed.

So I drive two hours down into Southern Illinois where everyone else is. There was the Judge, the State's Attorney, the Public Defender, the Court Clerk, the Bailiff, me, the victim, the police officer. Versus little old him.

I don't know how the others value their time, but I get anywhere from $20 to $40 an hour, and I wondered at how much this was costing the taxpayers, and all involved, so as to try him for this penny-ante misdemeanor.

He showed up, with the whole extended Trash Clan in their Sunday finery, in this case that being T-shirts and baggy jeans for the "men" and halters and slut skirts for the "women". (They all hadn't had this much excitement since Cousin Trash had a chance to be on Jerry Springer last year, and that other time when Betty Lou kicked Donny Ray out for him cheatin')

First there were some other "trials" to be had in this little corner of Amerika.

1. A hearing to determine the legitimacy of a search warrant that had been executed, and had resulted in a pot bust. The man's lawyer asked the undercover drug shit under oath, "What was the basis of obtaining the warrant?" - a reasonable question, it being a hearing to determine the legitimacy of the search warrant.

State's Attorney: "Objection! Outside the scope of the hearing!"

Judge: "Sustained"

Defense Attorney: "What led you to want a warrant?"

SA: "Objection! Outside the scope of the hearing!"

Judge: "Sustained"

Defense Attorney: (silent)

Judge: "Any further questions?"

DA: "No, your honor".

SA: "State has no questions"

Judge: "I find insufficient evidence to indicate the warrant was issued without merit."

2. Amusingly during this judicial farce, a guy in front of me was very agitated and asking if the man on the stand (the undercover shit) was "Jim's friend". Guess Jim doesn't know how to pick his friends very well!

3. Two people were then busted for possession of drug related paraphernalia, which nowadays means, "ZigZag Rolling Papers". They each plead out to a suspended sentence of a year, then a $750 fine, court costs, and another $50 payable to Crimestoppers, those fun lovers who run the 1-800-SQUEALER hotline.

Now it was Trash Jr.'s turn, but lo and behold, he was off with the State's Attorney in consultation. Seems he had figured that either the manager or I would call off, and he'd get a walk. As we were there, he obviously would not.

The State's Attorney was told that Trash Jr. didn't want to do community service - manadatory if convicted of Disturbing the Peace, which was what he was charged with. So he pleaded UP to Battery.

In this he was given Court Supervision for one year (translation: Nothing) and a $75 fine and court costs. And was barred from contact with either the manager or me or any property of the Company that owns the apartments.

Hmmm....rolling papers.....$750......scaring and bullying....$75? Such priorities, such justice.

In any case, it wasn't a total loss. The manager was glad to see me there, and her boss was similarily pleased. There may be some extra work for me now, so that is good.

And Maw Trash was evicted. And all were trespassed. And now they say they are moving back to Chicago.

Damn!

*smiles*

100 years of decline

2005-03-23T20:18:00.000-08:00

Test for fitness of entering College, 1901:

************************************************************************************

The College Board's first college entrance examinations consisted of essay examinations in English, French, German, Latin, Greek, history, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. These exams were held the week of June 17, 1901 at 69 locations (67 in the US, 2 in Europe). Over a third of the 973 test takers were from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and 38% came from private schools, 27% from public high schools, 22% from academies and endowed schools, and 13% from "other" or unstated institutions. After the exams, the answer books were read by experts in each subject, who rated them Excellent, Good, Doubtful, Poor, and Very Poor. These students applied to 23 colleges or universities, with 60% of them applying to Columbia University.

Here are some sample questions from this 1901 test:

Latin L -- Advanced Latin Composition

Friday, June 21 4:45 - 5:45 pm

1) Write the rules for the following constructions and illustrate each by a Latin sentence :
a Two uses of the dative.b The cases used to indicate the relations of place.c The cases used with verbs of remembering.d The hortatory (or jussive) subjunctive.eThe supine in um.

2) Translate into Latin:

"I see," said Cicero, "that the faces and eyes of all of you are turned toward me. Your good will toward me is truly pleasing to me. But I can see what is to my advantage much more clearly than you can what is to the advantage of the state. I shall encounter a storm of wholly undeserved odium: but it is worth my while to be called a tyrant if only this be driven from the city and the danger of this war be averted from you. But, since I must live with those whom I have conquered, it is your duty to see to it that my deeds may never harm me or mine. I have made it possible that those who are fighting for our country in foreign lands may have a place to which they may return as victors."

3) Change 2 as far as the words "But since" into indirect discourse depending on Cicero dixit.

Physics

A
1) A balloon contains 300 cubic meters of hydrogen, each cubic meter of which weighs 90 grams. The material of the balloon weighs 250 kilograms. Each cubic meter of the surrounding air weighs 7290 grams. How many kilograms in addition to its own weight will the balloon lift?

2) Describe a method of finding the specific gravity of a solid heavier than water; of a liquid.

B
3) A cylindric bar of uniform diameter and 1.5 meters long has a strong ring fastened to each end and another at a distance of one meter from one end. Show by three drawings how this rod may be used as a lever with each ring in turn serving as a fulcrum. What weight in each case (the weight of the bar itself being neglected) applied to one remaining ring will balance 25 kilograms at the other?

4) A steamer is moving eastward at the rate of 240 meters per minute. A man runs northward across her deck at the rate of 180 meters per minute. Show by a drawing his actual path and compute his actual velocity in centimeters per second.

************************************************************************************

So that's what High School graduates were expected to know in 1901. I'd like to give that test to any Public School Educator in America and kick them in the ass when they fail.

Literally. And hard. There is a level of mind raping so severe, so total, as to warrant a direct physical retaliation. And the crushing of our intellects that these drooling, self-righteous sanctimonius fools perpetrate on generation after generation of innocent children is a crime against humanity that makes Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa.

Remember this test, please, when next you hear of these "educators" speaking of how they are underpaid. Remember it when you hear them speak of their tireless dedication, of their "high standards" and all their other lies and nonsense.

According to the American Federation of Teachers, the average teacher's pay for 2004 was $45,000. For nine months of not teaching worth a damn. These educators wish to be thought altruists, but actually make out with a nice yearly sum for having three months vacation.

They wish to be thought professional, but their unions insist on them being promoted according to seniority like any manual laborer.

They wish to be thought intelligent and well educated - But get them to agree to take that test. Hell, get them to agree to take and pass the GED.

They are overpaid, underworked, undereducated, below average intellects who are so sure of this that they insist on being paid against their customer's will, insist on no real promotion standards, insist on no standards whatsoever.

I call for a new Federal Law - I, an Anarchist ask for this Federal Law - that says this:

"Any person who is drawing any income in any way whatsoever from a public school system shall be required to pass the GED each year with a score of 60 or above. Failure to do so will result in immediate termination."

Propose that at the next School Board meeting and see what happens!

Dean West

The Fundie Bashing Game

2005-03-21T14:03:00.000-08:00

There is an odd game played on the net known as "Fundie Bashing". It is a game of contradictions.

The rules are said to be one thing, known to be another. The goal is said to be one thing, known to be another.

What is the goal? The goal is simple: To fight those theocratic fascists who would impose their view of the Bible on everyone in the world at the point of a gun. To resist those who would wish to bring back burning witches at the stake. To oppose those who wish not only to overturn Roe vs. Wade, not only to repeal the 19th amendment, but to remove the shoes from the feet of all women.

Well, that's the stated goal. But since those who actually do believe all that are damn few, and since they are further busy running the American government, and thus do not have time to post as much as they'd like, the actually known goal is a bit different.

That goal is this: To harass and harangue any sincere believer in the message of Christ. To accept any belief of anyone as perfectly valid for them...unless that belief involves the Christian God. To discuss as if it were sane, the myths of any group of tribal savages or modern malcontents, but to hoot with laughter over stories of Virgin Births. To accept any illogicality of any belief system, but to relentlessly expose any misplaced comma in the Bible.

What are the rules? They are simple: To use love and tolerance to oppose the hate and bigotry of the Fundies. To use common sense and logic to explain the fallacies of those who cling to ignorance and superstition. To enter into dialogue to attempt to guide them to a better path, a more tolerant path, a more life affirming path.

Well, those are the stated rules. But since those who have a lot of love and tolerance are relatively few, and since common sense, logic and dialogue are difficult things, the actually known rules are a bit different.

Those rules are this: To dismiss any Christian out of hand with ridicule and contempt. To rely heavily on ad hominem. To lay at their feet every crime committed by anyone who was ever in any way associated with Christianity, and hold them responsible. To hold their beliefs up to a staggeringly high level of scrutiny, such that no belief system of man could last a minute under that kind of expectation of accuracy and consistency. To tell them their views and prove those wrong. To expect of them perfection in the following of their philosophy as we understand it, when few of us could accurately summarize our own code of ethics, let alone show much adherence to it.

Even the name is odd. For we call it "Fundie Bashing", but it is actually to all appearance little more then "Christian Persecution".

Now as it happens, there are people, and groups of people, who actually play the game as it is supposed to be played. These people and groups perform an invaluable service in exposing some of the hate filled agendas of the far right wing Christian Fundamentalists.

The Christian Identity Church. Racists. The 700 Club. Homophobic and Misogynistic. The Institute for Creation Research. Anti-Science and Education.

To name but a few of the bad fundamentalist groups. They need opposing, and often times, it is an easier to use the bad methods of ad hominem and ridicule to expose them. Proving the theory of evolution involves a knowledge of basic biology and the latest works in the field, and that is hard. Yukking it up about Cain's wife is far easier!

I don't actually mind people using the poor methods on the truly bad Fundie groups. Keep in mind the audience, I always say. And your audience isn't typically equipped to handle a logical dissertation on the properties of self-replicating nucleic acid molecules.

However...trouble starts when such "lower" weapons are used on those who are not fundamentalists. Who are not attempting to put their cowboy boots in a homosexual's face. Who have no desire to steal women's shoes.

These are just sincere believers in the message of Christ, which as they'd say if they got a chance boils down to little more then "Accept him in your heart, love God, and love your neighbor as yourself."

A little wordier then the "Harm none" of the Wiccans, but means about the same. And Goddess/God, who cares? So long as the love and peace are there?

To often these sincere Christians get dismissed. Or get attacked by those who'd not be able to withstand any real onslaught of actual fundies.

That's not nice.

The trouble is, and the reason why so many good Christians get assaulted on the boards, is because the good ones often times have the sins of the bad ones taken out on them. And also, there is a class of non-Christian which is really more "anti-Christian" then non-Christian.

Fake atheists are the main ones who fall into that category. You show me a Wiccan or Pagan, and I'll show you a sincere seeker of truth who would easily get along with real Christians.

You show me your average atheist on these boards, and I'll show you an insecure hater who'll ally with any faith or creed so long as it isn't the one he was raised in!

These are the fake atheists, the ones who were molested by priests, or who's parents were too strict with them, or had a bad time in Catholic School, or who's life sucks so bad they need a big powerful god to blame.

So their attitude is more accurately expressed by picturing them saying, "I hate you God, so I'll show you! I'll not believe in you, so there!" (*stomps little foot*)

We've all seen this type. We see little else. Whole communities of them exist where they pass the time trying to outdo each other in who can post a more profane and sacriligious post. Who has the sickest Jesus Joke. Who can find the most inaccuracies in the Bible. Who can tell the story of the dumbest Christian ever. And of course, they compete with each other over who hates fundies the most.

Then a Christian enters. The Christian will want to spread his ideas - which means he is as of 99% of us on the net, for what the hell else are the rest of us doing, if not sharing our ideas? We sure aren't seeing a movie together.

The Christian will know that he is going to be ratpacked. He will know all the likely objections. And he'll know his odds of escaping with any semblence of dignity are small. What courage to enter anyway, and actually identify himself.

The only other groups that get grief are the racists and the Rand followers. But not even the Aryans and the Anarchists get the same level of malice that Christians get, the same contempt, the same ugliness.

In fact, so bad is it, that I've had people tell me in email they were Christians, but they tell me only "in confidence" because they know they'd never be able to be taken seriously if others knew.

Were they racists, they'd be viewed with contempt for lack intelligence, but would be feared for their vengefulness. Were they admirers of Ayn Rand or Capitalism/Libertarianism they'd not be feared, but there'd be respect for their intelligence.

In neither case would they get half as much.

But a Christian? They're viewed as dumb by the same people who know that the Christians won't fight back very hard. Not the good ones, anyway. The ones that get it the hardest.

The opening shot is for the leader to post some smarmy and fake "Don't preach to us, we've had enough of that kind of thing here. No offense."

No offense? Imagine a Wiccan being told that! Or a Socialist! Or any other group! No, all others get to explain first, only Christians get that. And of course, they get more, for the manager saying that is really Net Talk for, "Release the hounds."

Then the others descend on him.

Typically, since Christians just so happen to be people, some of them will get quite angry. And be told off for not being as nice as Jesus. Or they'll quietly take it. And be accused of playing the martyr. Or try to explain. And get shrill cries of, "Quit preaching!". Or attempt to just post regularly on other topics. And be accused of "not answering because he can't."

Well, true enough, the Christian can't. Not for not having some answers - but for there being nothing a Christian can do that will in any way get him the respect that a person who worships the cows or the trees would take for granted.

Now. Don't get me wrong. There are some smugly annoying fundie fools out there. The kind that will post 13 chapters of scripture as proof, and if you address all but three verses will tell you that you didn't answer them. And if you answer all, they'll calmly tell you that isn't what those verses "really" mean. And if you explain that whole "I have a dictionary and can read English" thing, they'll say that your heart and mind are closed to the truth.

And they'll do all they can to let you know what hell bound, immoral dumbass you are.

But they aren't all like that. In fact, few of them are. And I think it's time a distinction was made. Not believing in Jesus does not automatically make someone smart and good. Believing in Jesus does not automatically make someone dumb and bad.

Dean West

Resolution, Reconciliation, Retraction

2005-03-14T18:23:00.000-08:00

On February 10th I posted a blog article called "Rainbow's Coalition". In it I accused Sharyn/Rainbow Circe of assisting a variety of net stalkers in their campaign against a woman I love.

As is usual in these turbulent flame wars and net battles there was more to the story. Sharyn and I had been friends at a group of hers. In all the battles going on, there was fall out there, and she felt it appropriate to demote me.

As it happens, it was over a thing that I had not done, but she could not have known that. Reaction met action, reaction to reaction, each wondering why the other was doing this or that or the other. Communications break down, and everything that was questionable, mistaken or misunderstood gets then taken in the worst possible light.

So far I describe what most all of us have been through when it comes to friends having a falling out.

However. Neither one of us were actually bad people, for all that we may have wondered. We each have been wishing that this had never happened, and that we'd have stayed friends, and that none of the ugliness would have taken place.

We have therefore sought to meet and figure things out. Who did this or that or what happened here or there. We agreed finally to meet in a chat room in some group outside either of our control, and worked out all that needed working out.

We are each sorry to the other for all the misunderstandings that have taken place, and all the mistakes made. Neither one of us wished for all this to have happened. We are not instantly buddies and best friends, such things are for fairy tales. But we are at peace, we are on friendly terms, and there is opportunity now for healing and a perhaps fully renewed friendship in the future.

There is respect and honor and peace in the meanwhile, and those are good things. There will be no more negativity spoken of by either of us about or to either of us. We each understand that the other means no harm.

I state for the record that Sharyn's role in that which I said she was in was a result of me misunderstanding her motives and her rationale behind various actions. I have offered her my apologies and she has accepted. I know longer believe as I did. She has no desire to harm or spread harm on these issues.

I have heard from Sharyn that she understands that things she thought of me, things she thought I had done, were not. But that other unknowns, with their own agendas, found it convenient to set two people at odds. She has offered her apologies for the misunderstanding, and I have accepted that. She does not view me as she had when we were upset with each other.

We ask that all people in these sections respect that, and that we all move on. This all started when a certain group came over to the Philosophy section to deliberately stir trouble. They have been remarkably successful, but with this, it now ends.

The issue of these "men" who keep attacking and harassing a bereaved mother for sport will not be used to further embroil the Philosophy and Spiritual groups that we each have various memberships in. And even now, the last manager of the last group that this battle has affected is being asked for peace by me, and I suspect that we will work something out.

When that occurs, this battle will be reconfined to where it belongs - in the few groups that these stalkers control in the News section. They won't be able to wage war or set at odds the people who were trying to post in peace in the Philosophy and Spiritual sections.

The issue will be dead in these sections. If you see someone post on it, any nic, any time, know that they are only trying to cause pain, no matter how gently they speak on it. For the principle people involved are of one mind in wishing it to be over, and confined to the actively hostile groups.

Dean West

My Favorite Reads

2005-03-13T13:16:00.000-08:00

Ahhh, what to include, and what not to include? And which order?

Well, with much waffling and wondering, I've listed these. They are not comprehensive, I held myself down to 12 in each category.

Obviously, there are more then 12 great books just written by Robert Heinlein alone! And obviously some authors were sadly underrepresented, or not on the lists at all.

And the non-fiction list is woefully inadequate.

All the lists are inadequate, for there are so many more good books, sagas, series and stories out there!

Here we go then:

Epic Sagas:

1. "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand

2. "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard

3. "Shogun" by James Clavell

4. "Boat of a Million Years" by Poul Anderson

5. "Gone With The Wind" by Margaret Mitchell

6. "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross

7. "Pallas" by L. Neil Smith

8. "Time Enough For Love" by Robert Heinlein

9. "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" by Robert Heinlein

10. "The Stand" by Stephen King

11. "Lucifer's Hammer" by Larry Niven

12. "Island in the Sea of Time" by S.M. Stirling

Fiction Novels:

1. "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand

2. "The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith

3. "Mote in God's Eye" by Larry Niven

4. "1984" by George Orwell

5. "King Rat" by James Clavell

6. "The Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove

7. "Rebecca" by Daphne DuMaurier

8. "Not the Glory" by Pierre Boule

9. "Lovelock" by Orson Scott Card

10. "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein

11. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein

12. "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein

Book Series:

1. "The Foundation Series" by Isaac Asimov

2. "The Well World Series" by Jack Chalker

3. "How Few Remain Series" by Harry Turtledove

4. "WorldWar/Colonization Series" by Harry Turtledove

5. "River of the Dancing Gods Series" by Jack Chalker

6. "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis

7. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglass Adams

8. "The Rings of the Master" by Jack Chalker

9. "The Lords of the Diamond" by Jack Chalker

10. "The Crosstime Engineer Series" by Leo Frankowski

11. "The Little Women Series" by Louisa May Alcott

12. "The Time Patrol Series" by Poul Anderson

Short Stories:

1. "And then there were none..." by Eric Frank Russell

2. "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson

3. ""Repent Harlequin!", said the Ticktockman" by Harlan Ellison

4. "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth

5. "Universe" by Robert Heinlein

6. "Rule Golden" by Damon Knight

7. "My Object All Sublime" by Poul Anderson

8. "In the Presence of Mine Enemies" by Harry Turtledove

9. "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Ray Bradbury

10. "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury

11. "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes

12. "Nightfall" by Isaac Asimov

Non-Fiction:

1. "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" by John Locke

2. "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

3. "Common Sense"
"The Rights of Man"
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine

4. "Walden and other writings" by Henry David Thoreau

5. "The Law"
"Economic Sophisms" by Frederic Bastiat

6. "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises

7. "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

9. "The Discovery of Freedom" by Rose Wilder Lane

10. "The Market for Liberty" by Morris and Linda Tannehill

11. "The Naked Ape"
"The Human Zoo" by Desmond Morris

12. "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond

Hope you find enjoyment in some of these!

Dean West

Credibility Nibblers

2005-03-12T01:09:00.000-08:00

In the world of MSN communities there is an attack method I call "nibbling at credibility". That's a method of attack where through strategic criticisms, sarcastic questions, martyrdom quittings, deliberately sought bannings, etc. you create a rising level of concern and distrust of an otherwise good manager.

It is a favored method of attacking a group, for without the manager, most groups sink down rapidly, no matter how good the members are. Not because managers are gods, but because without some experience at the helm, groups lag and drift apart, or boil over and explode.

In attacking a group, you can't just call the manager an asshole, for that tells everyone you are mean, so they support and sympathize with the manager then. So you must resort to those nibbling attacks.

You can augment such an attack. Let the manager know or suspect you are an attacker so as to get a swifter more questionable reaction. Not for the manager falling for it, but for the manager knowing that if he doesn't act fast, the attacker will try to sow dissension, shift friendships, etc. To wait a week can often times make it too late. If you ban then, there'll be two others who made friends with the attacker walk out. Then three more who leave because of those two. Etc.

If the attacker doesn't wish to go to the trouble of making the friends, just letting the manager think that could happen can be helpful. This tsrainy had a nic and experienced hand that suggested to me an attacker. That I may have erred on which attacker, means not that she wasn't and is one. This I do not suspect, this I know.

Another way to augment the attack is to have an ally or two already. Or try to get them fast once in. Often times, this is as easy as the creation of a couple of nics. Nics that can be salted in a variety of groups, months in advance of any need of them. Nics that can be given their own posting style, nics that can have their own posting history.

Then you have one nic provoke management, then when a reaction is had, have two more nics protest in a "more in sorrow then anger" style. Have a third quit in a huff. Have a fourth defy management over the now large "issue".

You'd be amazed how many groups get lost to that. Regular posters wish a safe environment for fun, for learning, for friendship and sharing. For a manager to lose control, rarely do many members stay to "sort out who was right". They just leave and post elsewhere. The strong members, the regulars, already have other group memberships, they just shift their activities.

And the targeted group dies.

Another way to augment, and the most devastating, is for a large group to overwhelm a smaller one. To have real posters join en masse - though usually at staggered intervals. Soon, the large group of 500, with 50 active posters at home base group has 10 active posters at your group.

Trouble is, you don't have 500 members with 50 active posters, that would be bad enough. You have 100 members and 10 active posters - now twenty, but half are shills.

I've seen groups - the democratically run ones - "voted" into the rival group's hands. Other times, with more appropriately run groups, it's a matter of provocation and touching off of a massive flame war and spam fest.

Needless to say, those large group members can not only join, but they easily each join a few fake nics each.

Who would want to do all these things? God, I must be paranoid!

Hardly. There are plenty who do these things, they happen all the time. There are loners who take down hate groups, or at least groups they hate. Their success depends on their intelligence and how many nics they can field at once. If they can't be in chat with three of their nics talking at once, they can't do much.

They'll use the methods above, and be all the players. They'll even have nics that are obviously them, so that while those are banned, the other nics of theirs can praise management for doing it.

There are also, and even more frequently, religious and political wars. There are Christian groups on the farthest right, who will try to "Christianize" a group, and bring it into their sphere of influence. Many managers are not so caring, and so long as their numbers are high, they'll do nothing about it. They figure they'll have a group either way.

But when the last non-Christian, or the last nice Christian, is run out, then all the fanatical invaders are tired. And don't want to post any more. So they go back to home group, leaving the manager with a dumb look on his face and two forlorn active posters left.

Now substitute any other religious or political group name where I wrote "Christian" and know that they all do it, too. And yes, some who do it, will stay afterwards. For some will be trying for bona fide converts, and will try to spread out as thin as they can, so as to control as many groups as they can.

Ever notice how many groups seem to have at least one of each ideology? That's not a coincidence. If a militant group doesn't see a sympathetic member in another group, they'll place one in there. Doesn't mean that the lone socialist is a spy, just means that if there had not been one, one would have joined.

Typically. Not all groups are worth doing this with, and not all militant groups have the manpower or fake nic supply to do this.

There are also those who just like destroying. Both loners, and whole groups of nihilists. The groups will usually have a goal. They then don't seek to bring into control, they just take out a rival or threat.

The Race based groups will call it cleansing, the religious right will call it "destroying dens of iniquity", and those "dens of iniquity" will call their own destroying expeditions, "taking the fundies down a notch".

And so it goes.

I just thought I'd share all that. It may help explain some of the things you see when posting about the boards.

Dean West

Why Time Travel Doesn't Work

2005-03-11T00:38:00.000-08:00

I write this now after the span of some centuries, I am an old man now in spirit, and weary beyond all knowing.

I perfected my time machine in the Summer of 2005. With the final part, the essential part, given to me by my niece. That's when the trouble started, for once it was invented, it was invented for all time. The percent of mankind that had access to such technology was small. But it was a percent drawn from all mankind throughout all of history.

Everyone wanted to change things, from their own personal lives, to their nation's course, to their race's destiny...

Humanity split into two classes of people, those aware of the changes, and those in the dark who simply had change after change sweep over them..."timelocked" we called them.

"Temporal Immortals" we called ourselves, for our mastery of time let us leap into fantastic futures of far advanced geriatrics and gene technologies. Centuries have I personally lived through since I left on that fateful trip to learn from my niece where she got that part...and yet my biological age is even now but thirty six.

As it happens, she got the part from my machine...we don't then know how it "first" came into being.

Even as I was first experimenting, I started to sense and observe passing discontinuities, for the experience of travelling through time gives you the ability to remember how things were before they were changed.

I remember wondering how the Illini Province of the British Americas could now be called "the state of Illinois in the U.S.A.". As it happened, a terrorist group called the Daughters of the American Insurrection on my timeline had gone back and given aid and assistance to a little known band of political activists and traitorous plantation owners, in an attempt to disrupt the Global Pax Brittanica that I and all sane subjects enjoyed living under.

When it then changed again, but to a barren and blasted wasteland where once had grown the corn of the midwest, I and my niece almost died getting ourselves and our notes and materials out of the region to the nearest settlement of Novy Petrograd, in the Socialist Republic of America, U.S.S.R.

No sooner did we locate a University, where the French Quarter of New Orleans had once been, when we found ourselves being sharply quizzed by professors of her Most Catholic Majesty, Queen Isabella VII, Empress of the Spanish Dominion, protector of Nueva Hispana.

These Jesuit trained professors quickly caught on to our dilemna, and fortunately explained it to us before they themselves realized the full implications. We managed to escape into the past, through my nieces clever idea - we got a message to a guard (who was in the Protestant Liberation Organization) that bade him to preserve the exact location of where we were that day.

His group then feverishly worked on recovering our machine from what was to them but a pleasant expanse of endless plains over which the buffalo and unconverted Native Americans still roamed.

They then set the controls to our cell and for the time just before when we originally gave the guard the message - allowing us to then not give the guard the message, and escape far down into the past, before they could know of the technology.

Safe - for a bit - in the days when the Sumerian Empire was but a few scattered tribes that had discovered that grains could be cultivated, we took stock of things. We realized that with the existence of time travel, every interest group was trying to make the world over in their own version of Utopia.

We were safe, but only for being in an era that no one wanted to change, the era when man first left tribal existence and formed the first city states. We knew that all the changes were still continuing uptime, with Nazis fighting Confederates, Dutch Reformists versus Basque Nationalists, Scientologists versus The Holy Mormon Empire of Deseret.

And soon enough, those further uptime - who's existence was as real, and life long as any's, for all that it kept flickering - would think to track us, the original inventors. At that point we flicked backwards, just as a fleet of thousands of ships started flickering into Sumeria, zeroing in our location with their devilishly accurate tracking devices.

A long trip uptime we then took, this time to the year 17,500 A.D., where we were able to outfit ourselves with cloaking devices and other defensive measures - as well as the longevity serum. Though those assisting us kept shifting about in appearance and mannerisms, we were able to leave a request at one point, then flick up fifty years to collect it from the changed personnel who had still carried out the instructions out of curiosity.

Feeling more secure, we reasoned that others would have our own problems with what was happening, and that they'd seek to try to quell these temporal shifts. We reasoned that they'd wish to meet like minded people, and that they'd seek a point far down in time to do so.

43,000 B.C. - nevermind the exact year - we touched down on the plains of East Africa, where the first group of "highbrows" were in flight from the Neanderthals! And got another overwhelming shock to realize that man's history itself was a self-created alternate, for it was only our own assistance that allowed these ancestors of all mankind to regroup, plan, and go back and slaughter their own primitive ancestors, clearing the way for the ascendency of Homo Sapiens Sapiens...

At such point - just after their success - was where those who sought to fight against the changes converged. We listened to their lofty ideals, and agreed with them. And formed the Time Patrol, modeled after a science fiction series popular in several timelines, for thousands of alternates were represented on that ancient field.

We didn't tell them of the first change ever. Nor of the Neanderthal machine that had flickered in just before their arrival - blown out of the sky by our own vehicles "defensive" armament. The blood of an entire intelligent species...forever on our hands...

We journeyed back into the age before the dinosauars, and planned and thought and researched and planned. And not infrequently fought off random temporal rogues, who sought to stop our efforts before we started our efforts.

Given that we had all came from so many different divergences, though we all opposed the divergences, we finally agreed that it would be best to restore things to how they were in my own timeline, where his Brittanic Majesty ruled over all, in a peace and prosperity that was global.

We fought then. A thousand battles, in a thousand locations, on tens of thousands of timelines. Hard enough to damp out the changes from a Carthage not so easily destroyed - at least we knew to look at Carthage in the first place.

But how to find out about, and end, the equally disastrous consequences of a kindly tutor (an enemy temporal agent) who raised a King John to be so benevolent and wise that no band of noblemen ever had cause to waylay him on the road to Runnymede in 1215?

Who could know in advance that if that suspiciously mysterious and rich woman had not run off with that ne'er do well printer in 18th century America, that he'd have wrote a pamphlet that incited the general populace to take up arms against King George III? That this woman turned out to be my niece getting things back on track prompted furious debate as to whether my timeline was really the proper one...and resulted in her own assassination by a Time Patrol turncoat...

After centuries of this - not just battles and assassinations, but the tedious research, the years of living as one of the "timelocked" in various primitive eras gathering intelligence, and the petty intrigues that flourished even within the Patrol...

The answer finally was determined, the final change from which all other changes would be damped out...

At the point in which the latest change had ended in the assassination of my niece before she could seduce this T. Paine away from his future literary endeavours - as I maintain she was supposed to do - it was decided without my knowledge that if only I had never invented the machine, then all would be well.

Betrayed by those I trusted, and captured by my own trusted servant, and still in mourning for my niece's untimely demise....they sentenced me to a temporal revision in which I'd live, but be unable to invent the process.

I pleaded in vain for the last change to be carried out first, for this madman of Boston to be given another woman to lure him away from his seditious activities that would see the overthrow of British authority in North America. But they had had enough, and refused.

They flicked upwards in time, and saw to it that my grandfather did not invest in the Xerox Corporation as he originally had, thus my father had no inheritance, but was a regular corporate executive. Thus I myself was raised in a...public school system! This instead of being sent to the private academy I had originally attended.

I felt for the first time what I imagine those of other timelines had felt at the moment of change - a final shift that would end all other shifts. I passed out, and awoke with a start in what looked like a middle class home. And turned out to be a middle class home, in this new world I find myself timelocked in, a world where I am of the middle classes, and where I was raised in public schools, and can think and reason only with great difficulty.

I dimly recall the ease with which I used to solve problems, the Latin I knew, the equations I could do in my head...all gone. Reasoning is possible, but only with great effort. I have no knowledge of how to construct a temporal device.

I have trouble enough understanding this changed world, for his Majesty here is but the grandson of the Queen, and the British Americas are now some kind of Fascistic Empire intent on global domination. And it seems the Rights of Englishman have been wholly overlooked, and we've no more freedom then is doled out by this nine member judicial group you have.

And however did the Patriarch of the leading crime family of the New London underground gain this Presidency you have? And then gain it again for that backward son of his?

In any case, you are now "up to date" on all that has transpired, and now I must accomodate myself to this new (to me) life of being a slave in this dictatorship, in which my very mind has been stunted by the child indoctrination agents of this brutal nation.

I suppose none of you are aware of any of the changes...or even how it was originally...given that this was such a neatly timed temporal change. The first change to create this Dark Empire, the second to make me helpless in it.

I have puzzled out now why time travel is not possible. For when it is, something like this happens each "time", and the changes continue until the change is made where the machine could not have been invented.

I see the French are still rude. That seems a universal constant!

Dean West

My Travels

2005-03-10T01:09:00.000-08:00

I spent ten years traveling around America. I'd work in a city, see it's sights, meet it's people, work varying jobs, live varying places, read varying books.....

Then hitchhike or hop a freight to the next town when I was bored and start over again. My favorite game, and how I started this was.....

Well, I started by selling all I had, having a big blow out party, then buying a one way bus ticket to LA. I got off the bus with no money, and only the clothes on my back.

I was dining at Spagos three months later in new suit, with a woman I'd known in High School, and paying $200 for this little tiny dinner, and another $75 on the wine. Then we hit those private clubs that don't even advertise.

And I was broke! But I'd done it, rags to riches, and in three months. With a place to stay and a steady job. I left shortly after the Riots.

After that, I'd see how long it took me in each new town to get a secure place and job. One week was the average, once I got into the swing of it. I'm sure it'd take a couple of weeks again now.

This....gives one a lot of experiences, and adds years on to their emotional/spiritual life. I was in conversation with my younger brother who makes three times what I make, as he is an executive at State Farm Insurance, having started work for them just out of High School. He took the "safe" route. Which is fine, such things can be right for some.

He asked me what the point was once, when I was calling to chat from a pay phone on the side of a highway outside of Caspar, Wyoming. I told him this: "When you have wrote your diary entry for January 1, you may then photocopy it another 364 times and be done with it. For you get up, work, go home, rest, sleep and repeat. Me, I can't photocopy my first entry, because today I am here, tomorrow I will be elsewhere, and a year from now will know of a dozen other cities, two dozen other jobs, and three dozen other people I have been friends with."

He understood. Though he found it as distasteful as I find cubicles. And soccer matches. And corporate picnics. And etc.

I argued religion with a dozen ministers, priests and rabbis. I debated and chatted with street people and office workers in LA. And professors and lecturers in Boston. And diplomatic aides in NY. And reformers and politicos in DC.

I read books for a month straight at the Boston Public Library, and lived there, though I was not supposed to, obviously. I toured art galleries and art stores in the largest cities in America, and saw such beauty as to let one die content. I browsed in the stores of the rich where the electronic marvels and wonders would take your breath away, with machines that generate holograms of loved ones full sized and in full color, and gadgets to repel people with a sonic beam at the touch of a button.

I'm not really 36 except chronologically. I've seen so many different things. I know what factory work is like, and executive work, and military work and what living in lean-to's, trailers, mansions, houses, tents, cabins and cars are like. I was a butler in a mansion in Thousand Oaks, California, and a janitor in an apartment in Texas, and a tree trimmer in a trailer in Florida a security officer in a boarding house in Boston and a nanny in a home in Tennessee.

I spent my twenties doing nothing but seeing all the states, not including Hawaii, but including Alaska.

Dean West

Is there a god?

2005-03-09T05:32:00.000-08:00

It is customary to speak of the Universe when we are really refering to the Known Universe. There are two different concepts, and if English, or our scientists, were more exact, we would have two different words.

Known Universe - The Space/Time continuum usually thought to have been caused by the phenomena refered to as the "Big Bang". It is approximately 15 to 20 billion years old, and approximately 30 to 40 billion light years in diameter...and expanding.

Universe as a whole - That which is everything that exists. All things, all events, all causes. Every existent in existence or ever in existence or that ever will be in existence. The all in all.

From a metaphysical viewpoint, the Known Universe is irrelevent when it comes to the first cause debate. We know the first cause of the Known Universe, or believe we do anyway. We do not know the cause of the first cause.

There are two primary ways of understanding the first cause problem when it comes to the Universe as a whole. The realist/objectivist one says that the Universe as a whole is finite and eternal. And that it did not have a cause, it just is. This makes sense from the standpoint that "The Universe as a whole is that which is everything that exists, and any cause of it is also an existent, therefore a part of the Universe as a whole." This sounds rather slippery, but trust me when I tell you that it is all slippery at this level.

The religious/faith one says that the Universe as a whole may be finite/infinite, eternal/noneternal as a Creator/s sees fit. And that this supreme creator then has the finite and eternal characteristics usually ascribed by the realist/objectivists to the Universe as a whole. This makes sense from the standpoint of "Something greater then the Universe as a whole was needed to shape the Universe as a whole. And that he/she/it/them may well be a part of the created Unverse as a parent is a part of the child, but that there is a qualitative difference that allows him/her/them to have characteristics that we wouldn't expect of a material object." This sounds rather slippery too, and oddly enough, even a little more complex, but faith makes it easier.

Which one is right? From a religious viewpoint, the second. And certainly faith makes it easier to believe the oddities found on this level of investigation.

From a scientific viewpoint, it is a toss up. True, Occam's razor says something about taking the simplest hypothesis. And assuming a finite and eternal universe we see seems easier then denying that possibility to what we see, but reattributing it to something we don't see. But it IS slippery, and more then a few scientists have shrugged and turned to faith for certainty in this particular area. Why? Because while Occam's razor is true in general, there is a big problem with the "It just is" arguement.

The problem involves the short question, "Why?"

Why is there a something (the Universe as a whole) as opposed to a nothing? I do not wish to sound a "bottle half empty" guy, but "nothing" seems more natural then something.

This is because an empty room needs no explanation, but a full room implies causes as to why what is where, and when and how. NO, I am not talking about "Intelligent design", just the simple fact that when an object exists, we wonder how it got there, but where nothing exists, we don't need an explanation.

Were there nothing at all, no Universe as a whole, no reality, no nothing, then not only would we not need an explanation as to why, but we wouldn't be there to ask. But there is a something, and while we can say, "It just is", and even be right in one way, it still nags at us for an explanation as to "why something rather then nothing?".

An ancient Hebrew deity, or any deity at all, may seem illogical or even absurd...but any who play with the problem long enough do eventually shrug and think, "Why not?"

Proof of a Creator? No. But perhaps reason to not be quite as quick to dismiss those who find some peace of mind in believing in one.

And the nicest thing about the Christian deity as modernly known is that he seems to leave all the Universal laws in place so causality can be taken as a given for the Known Universe we live in. As for causality in the Universe as a whole...we don't know.

Dean West

First Date Sex

2005-03-08T04:57:00.002-08:00

I can't speak for every man, but in my experience if a woman invites me in, for any stated reason, at the end of a date, then it is her way of expressing that she would not necessarily mind if you attempted a sexual encounter. Likewise if she accepts my invitation for her to come in to my place.

It may be said that the couple simply wishes to carry on a scintillating conversation, but if so, they'd not have bothered to leave the restaurant.

As to whether any woman has genuinely thought, "Gee, he looks thirsty, perhaps some water would do him good before he drives home.", I doubt this.

Other excuses for inviting the guy or girl in:

1. "Let me show you that "x" I told you about." Where as X = cd collection, autographed baseball, Ansel Adams print, your portrait, your new stereo/tv/etc...lol...drapes...

2. "Care for a drink before hitting the road?" Yeah, in this day of legally drunk being .08% a drink is just what you want before driving home at night!

3. "Let me show you my new place." As if there is anything novel about his/her apartment other then the color of the Ty Bears she collects, or the brand of air freshener he ran out and bought that afternoon!

4. "I just got the new release of X that came out today, if you like." Uh huh. Watching Spiderman II or What A Woman Wants is just what everyone was itching to do at 11pm!

Basically, if the two find themselves in the same dwelling place, then it is to be assumed that the two each are willing...at the least willing to engage in some foreplay to see. The guy will never change his mind at that point - at least history records no exceptions - but on some occassions the woman will. Rather then simply say "no", and thus be rude, she'll make "just a quick call", then learn to her sorrow that her cat choked on a chicken bone, etc.

Assuming the woman does not have any emergencies pounce on her, the foreplay will then carry on to first date sex.

While there are some guys who swear by it, I find it tacky to leave right after. You also then are giving up round 2, and in the morning round 3. (Yeah, yeah, the rest of you guys have 5 rounds, bully for you!)

What's a woman do if she doesn't want all that? It's not that hard. Meet the date at the restaurant instead of him picking you up. That way if it goes south you can drive yourself straight home afterward.

(Guys, in such a situation, pull the "I know this great little X" dodge, where X = a coffeehouse, a cozy pub, a pretty forest, a 24 hour Ice Cream Parlor, anything to drive her away from the restauarant with her car left behind!)

Women...obviously you may say, "No, thank you" if that is brought up.

If the woman goes for that, she's not committed yet. She can be dropped back off at her car. The guy will be working out a creative reason for why stopping off at his place first makes perfect sense - when in reality, it would never actually make sense!

The man will wish to show her something or get her something or drop off something that necessitates swinging by his place. The woman if she does not want sex should probably somewhat firmly state her desire to be dropped off first.

If the man is so rude to insist, then she should wait in the car when they arrive, and ignore coldly - if need be - his boorish cajolery to come up with him for a minute.

(Guys...don't be that guy)

Now she may have been convinced, if so, he'll trot out the pretense for her to go up with him, and off they'll go to see his new dvd player!

Well, all that is the general outline!

Dean West

Duty Love

2005-03-07T04:14:00.000-08:00

What is love?

When the happiness of the other means more then you own. Moreso, when you cannot be happy if they are not. When you would lay down your life for the other, for the simple reason that if the other were to die, your own life would not then be worth living, so you die willingly so that your highest value might then live on.

The love being refered to here is the kind that is the strongest and truest meaning of the word, the type of love that a parent has for a child, or a person for their spouse, in some cases a friend for a friend.

Yet is this always what is meant when the word "love" is used?

No.

Love has had so many other meanings put on it. Sometimes we add another word to it, to qualify it's meaning. Thus we have Platonic Love, Fraternal Love, Romantic Love. All those can still be defined by the highest definition, the difference is only in the object of that most strong and powerful of emotions. A friend, a brother, a spouse.

We have another qualifying word, Agape, which is a religious concept, much disputed, that involves a love for everyone, with no judgement as to their value, a love not for who they are, or what they are worth, but rather a love granted out of duty, not to be earned, but to be given as an automatic.

We have further meanings of love, wherein without even putting a qualifying word on it, we speak of loving material objects or situations or services.

"I love the burgers at McDonalds!", "I loved that movie!", "I love that new hat!", "I loved that vacation we took last year in Orlando!"

In such cases, "love" is a word that is used only as the superlative of the word "like", and few would in actuality die for any of the stated objects of that kind of "love".

There is the definition of love that is little more then an upsurge of hormones, a horniness, a need of release. It is not romantic love, though it can be mistaken for it, rather it is simply a slang of the real word "lust".

There is a last kind, little mentioned, in fact hardly ever mentioned. In fact, I've never really heard of it being spoken of, though I've noted that it is sadly on of the most common kind of loves there is.

Duty Love. Expected Love. Automatic Love. "Of course" Love.

As in...."Of course I love my grandparents!"...when the person can't stand their grandparents, never talks with them if they can help it, avoids visiting, and were it not for a blood relation would never have met them, nor had anything to do with them, ever.

Our culture teaches us to say the word "love" for certain relationships, and no matter how innappropriate it is, no matter how far fetched, no matter how at odds with reality and common sense, we not only say the word, but even kid our own selves that we mean it.

There are plenty of people who really don't like their grandparents - or cousin, sibling, uncle, aunt, parents. They have nothing in common with them. They derive no happiness from them. They are not of the same social class, they have not the same religion or beliefs, no common interests.

Yet if asked, "Do you love your parents?" they will say, "Yes". Sometimes they are honest enough to qualify it a bit, usually in cases where it is glaringly apparent that the real emotion felt is contempt, boredom or even hate. Then you'll hear, "Yes, even though they exasperate me." Or, "Yes, but we don't talk much."

Why? Why say what is not felt?

Because we are thought to be bad if we don't feel love for certain classes of people. And no one likes to be thought of as bad. We are also taught that everyone feels that emotion for those people, and as a child, if you ever honestly say, "I don't love Uncle John", you are immediately told, "Oh, don't say that! You know you do, just because you don't always get along with a relative doesn't mean you don't love them!"

Thus are we raised to know that whatever we feel, if it's family, it's love.

This has devastating consequences, for not only is there the direct harm of wasting time on people that would better be spent watching a PBS fundraiser, or grouting the tile in the bathroom, but it also cheapens - and even poisons - the word love.

And then cheapens and poisons the very concept of it, in your own mind. When you are trained to fool yourself, when the whole culture strives for it as an ideal, one should not wonder at how it succeeds. Of course it will succeed. For who is to bold enough to say different?

A child knows he is feeling boredom or resentment or even malice toward a given relative. He is told he still loves this relative. Conversely, he sees in the actions of a relative all the appearances of that relative feeling malice towards the child - but is calmly and piously assured by that relative that, "I still love you". And all others will say, "Of course he does!".

From this the child could come to the conclusion that everyone in his life is either in a conspiracy to screw with him, or that they all were fooled in their own upbringing and don't know any better. No one comes to that conclusion. Rather, the word of everyone the child knows is taken at face value.

He feels emotion "X". He is told that is love. From that point on, X = LOVE. It is that simple.

And what is X? X is feeling contempt, malice, anger, boredom, all manner of negative emotions towards person A, whereas A itself equals "A person who society says must be loved, no matter what, or you are bad."

If only the negative emotions exist, but the object of those emotions is a stranger, or coworker, or boss, or service person, or salesman, etc. then you do not have X, and the negative emotions are simply given the real label.

But if those same negative emotions are felt to brother, sister, mom or dad, or any other relative, then since society insists, and the family teaches, that it is "love", you then feel that emotion, note it is towards an A category person, and call it "Love".

Ask yourself what that does to your soul? To your peace of mind? To your mental health and emotional stability? Ask if it has anything to do with how twitchy and sullen and resentful so many people are. It has a lot to do with that.

Bad enough to encounter such a bad person in the first place, and to have to feel negative emotions. But to have to call the hurt and negativity by "love", and smile when you say it, and fool others, having first having fooled yourself? Horrible, and very damaging, for it is hard to fool yourself, and impossible to do it without harming yourself.

Typically, you suspect yourself, but trained to know that only bad people don't love category A people, you condemn not the one who causes the pain, but rather you condemn yourself! And in an almost fully automatic process, you violate your own soul, beat down your own emotions, dim down your own mind, and say, "Yes, I love him, even though he is a schmuck."

Have I listed out all of category A? I made mention of all those extended relatives, but I did not mention a certain class of relative. The ones that are not of blood, but of marriage.

I refer not to in-laws, our culture, in a rare burst of sanity, does not require us to display this "pretend love", this "duty love", this "self-violative, reality destroying love" to bitchy mother in laws, or shiftless brother in laws, or alcoholic sister in laws.

But it does require you to feel it for your spouse. That is the one category A person in the equation that is related not by blood, but by marriage. Unless you are actually getting divorced, you must say you love your spouse, no matter what. And even in the event of a divorce, it is popular and all but socially mandated, to "be mature" and "know that a part of you will always love him/her anyway".

Is that mature? Does a part of you always love the ex?

No, it's not mature, it's expected. Yes, a part of you does, the part that is feeling the same fake love you have for your idiot cousin or overbearing mother. The same duty love we just discussed. That is all you really feel. For if you felt any kind of real love at all for the person you divorced, you'd scarcely have divorced them.

Need proof? Well, we started out defining love as being such a great and overriding concern for the other that you'd die for them. That their happiness meant more then yours, and that you'd not be happy if they weren't.

That's why you gave her all the property, and insisted to the judge that you pay twice the required amount in alimony? That's why you decided, "Why bother with a lawyer, when he already has one, I'll just go to his lawyer's office and sign whatever they like - just to make him happy!"

Uh huh.

When you get divorced, you have not real love for the person. You have this Duty Love, this Fake Love, this "I must feel this way because society thinks the less of me, and even I think the less of me, if I don't feel it at all costs!" type of "love".

What about before the divorce? Before there is even talk of a divorce? So long as no one speaks of leaving, is it then always true love holding the couple together?

Not a chance.

Sorry to be negative, so you know there is real and true love in marriages. We all know which couples have that kind of love, too. That old couple walking down the beach, still holding hands after 45 years. Who still find their greatest happiness in sharing a sunset with each other.

Just as we all know the types that can only feel Duty Love. There are, after all, obvious cases. The beaten woman in body - who is also beaten in soul - and assures you, "I love him, I just wish he wouldn't drink so much." Uh huh. Sadly, if she's beaten enough in her soul, she might well lay down her life for him, though that's rare, and might more be for fear of what he'd do if he survived after she did not assist!

But the "abused wife" is such the stereotype, and in truth, there are oh so many less obvious examples. There are "The Bickersons". You know who I mean. They always fuss and quarrel and bitch and piss and moan and squabble with each other. And they always stay together, sometimes with "the kids" as the motive, more often for some personal reasons they each feel, but don't want to admit, even to themselves.

He doesn't figure he can do any better, and neither does she. One, the other, or both figures, "Better the devil I know...". One may figure, "At least she keeps the house clean, even if she is a whiny shrew." and the other thinks, "Well, he's a good provider and doesn't hit me like my sister's husband. That he's lousy in bed and belittles everything I do...well, it could be worse."

Sometimes it's even just a case of material security. "I won't go back to living in an apartment, I worked my ass off taking care of him, and am not going to lose this lovely house." or in these modern times, "I can't pay the mortgage myself without her income."

Even social factors, "Our church doesn't allow divorce", "I like his social circle", "A politician can't afford a messy divorce", "What would all our friends think?"

For whatever reasons, there is no true love. The woman holds the man in utter contempt, the man is belittling to the woman, either or both emotionally abuses the other. They argue and quarrel. They have no common interests any more. They play petty little mind games one to the other, or both to each other.

There is nagging and malice, threats and bullying, hatreds and despairings. In varying combos, in varying degrees, but no real passion, no real joy, no real love.

And through it all, "No, I still love him, I just don't like him when he's cruel to me, and he never takes me any where or does what I want to do..." or "I love her, I just wish she'd clean the house and cook, I work all day and this is what I come home too..."

All for the concept so trained into us from childhood, this Duty Love that we call not even by that name, but say instead, "Love", as if the pain just described is semantically equivalent to the old couple strolling down the beach in 45 years of wedded bliss, or equal to the love of a man who'd gladly die that his wife might live but another day.

And...it's made easier to claim it, with a bit of natural human vanity and pride. A natural desire to not look foolish. A natural desire to not wish to admit, "I made a mistake in marrying this person, and I am so silly that I am still not going to correct that mistake even now."

Who amongst us is going to admit that to ourselves? Here's a hint: The only ones of us who ever admit that - are the ones who are then filing the divorce papers the next day. No one can admit something like that, and then live out their life in the full knowledge that they are living a lie.

Sadly, more people will lie to themselves. And assure themselves that they still must feel something for him, he wasn't always bad, there have been some good times, he tries, he this, he that...it never occurs to them to ask, "Gee, if he's so good, why are you even worrying about it?"

So the vanity of humans, plus early conditioning by a silly society, equals treading water in a painfully boring, and even actively harmful marriage, all with the sugar coated lie of, "He's not all bad, and I do love him, and I know that in spite of everything, he loves me." Know instead that one does not have to be all bad, to be bad enough. And that the "everything" that he loves you in spite of, are all the things that prove it is not real love felt!

Others are aided in feeling Duty Love by kidding themselves that they know he still loves them, so it would be wrong for them not to feel it back. Guess what? They guy who is always putting you down, cares not for your interests and dreams, doesn't appreciate you, or even understand you, is not going to lay down his life, that you might live! No, you need not pluck any daisy petals to know that he "Loves you not"!

This myth, this sham, this "Duty Love" that we teach our children, is responsible for so much pain. Wasted hours and years in visits with relatives that you care not for. Changing the course of your life for not wishing to upset your mother, or let down your father. Frittering away your savings and your own dreams to care for an alcoholic sister or junkie cousin, or gambling aunt, or stealing brother.

Staying in a loveless marriage, telling yourself that a house equals a home, that boredom equals security, that not being beaten equals love, that nagging equals concern, that quarrels equal care, that good with kids equals good enough for you...and any other lie that lets you avoid the effort of real and meaningful change to an uncertain - but undoubtedly better - path.

I might think that this horrid mistake started the same time as the concept of Agape Love came about. But I mention that only in passing, for it matters not where this "Duty/Pretend/Lying Love" concept came from.

It matters only that it is real, and that if you recognize that such a bad type as that exists, you can then evaluate your own relationships, and if you are honest, you can then start down the road that will allow you to effect positive changes in your life.

Dean West

Russian Roulette, etc.

2005-03-06T02:45:00.000-08:00

There is a game that young men sometimes play that is a very bad game, but is attractive, for it lets them goad each other into "proving" they have no fear of death.

It's called Russian Roulette. Amazingly, that game is still actually played, in Colleges and in the Military. For those unfamiliar with it, you take a six shot revolver, and put one bullet in it. Then you spin the cylinder and snap it closed without looking to see if the bullet is primed to fire, or if pulling the trigger will make the hammer fall on an empty chamber.

Obviously, you have a one out of six chance of blowing your head off, when you then aim at your own head and pull the trigger.

I'm afraid of a pointless death, so I was not interested in playing the first time I was exposed to this game in the Air Force. So I quickly came up with a variation that turned people off from playing it for real.

I knew I couldn't just refuse, so instead I took the gun first, and said, "I want to play a game called, Who Would Have Died If They'd Been Dumb Enough To Pull The Trigger!", I span the cylinder, pointed it at the floor, and said, "It would have been X's turn and I can see that he'd have lived." (I then showed the gun so they could see the round wasn't in the spot that would have been next.)

I span it again, aimed down, named the next person, and said the same thing. Then the third time, I named the person, and said, "Oh...and he would have died. I guess this is where we'd all call it an evening?" The twitchy sicko who suggested the game wasn't pleased, but I knew most everyone else was relieved at being released from the game without having to confess "cowardice".

For the knowing of the name of the person who'd have died ended all the silly macho talk about who was "brave" enough to play Russian Roulette. I think in the main, these games always get proposed by someone who usually either doesn't intend to go first, or has such issues that he doesn't care if he dies. Then young males who should know better, emotionally badger each other into it for not wishing to look like the only "coward", when in truth, everyone there is probably hoping that someone will give them an out!

In the ordinary course of things, the "out" comes when someone must degrade themselves by point blank refusing. Thus looking the coward. I prefer to make the person who originally proposed the game look stupid for suggesting it instead.

Russian Roulette is so much more common then I would have thought. Four times in my life that game has come up, I wouldn't have thought it would have even come up once. When I was older and more confident, I'd not bother with the elaborate ruse, but just say, "You dumb fucks die if you want, I'm going to be a pussy and get a beer!" which usually gets a laugh, and a quick chorus of "me, toos"!

People are so easily led. But there are always so many more twitches looking to lead though.

I played my version of the game with my sons, when they were 16 and 14. I like to tell, show and/or do all the stupid things with my kids first, that way they can associate it with their nerdy dad, and it won't have as much incentive for them! It takes the mystery out of stuff, too.

Funny, my son who went into the Army never encountered the game, but it was my younger son (then 16) who came home to tell me that someone had tried to get everyone to play the game over at a friend's house. And he'd grabbed the gun and did what I said before it could get out of hand. And he'd afterward taken the round out, and hid the gun from his tipsy buddies. (Alcohol almost always comes before that game.)

I told him he did good, then I went to the bathroom and got sick. I felt that I'd just won a game of Russian Roulette, for the odds did not favor me having ever met my sons (adopted), let alone telling them of that game.

I always think parents should go over all the many stupid things kids and young folk do, like drugs and guns and such. But in a realistic way, that lets them have more ways of dealing with a thing then "Just saying no", and more reasons to not do a thing then "Dad saying no".

Like not telling lies about pot and alcohol, when we know damn well it's harmless. Let them get drunk at home and at friend's houses, they'll bore of it soon enough, and build a tolerance in the meanwhile. Teach them the real dangers of pot, such as living in your paren'ts basement at the age of 25, or getting raped in prison because our government is so tyrannical.

And show them actual crack addicts. I took them to a 2nd Avenue crack whore (this in Fairbanks, 2nd Ave, is where the crime stuff is, at night) and asked her what all she'd do for $10. She had a lot of things to suggest to who she thought of as just three random guys. When she ran out of suggestions, I asked if she knew any guy who'd join in, and she said yes. I thanked her for her time, and my kids and I left her there with the ten bucks paid for her time and trouble.

I explained to my sons on the way home that cocaine and crack were really, really fun. (Remember, don't lie, or you lose credibility) I told them it was like Russian Roulette though. Many people could handle it, but many could not. And that it wasn't a matter of how smart you were, it was just luck of the genetic draw. And if they tried it, and they were the type to be addicted, they'd be on the corner next to her.

They are 18 and 20 now, and I know they've had opportunity to use since they were 16 and 14 and I showed them that "lady". I've also taken them to homeless shelters where I played "Spot the Junkie" with them.

Kids need to see the real dangers of things. They need to hear the real truth. It's the parent's responsibility.

Dean West

Smoking

2005-03-05T02:12:00.000-08:00

Did you know that cigarettes are the number one cause of lung cancer? So our government says...

Yet I cannot help but notice that radon is listed as the second largest cause of lung cancer. What does that mean?

It means we didn't know about radon till about twenty years ago. And all the lung cancer deaths caused by radon, had been attributed to cigarettes. And we had to modify the figures when we found out about radon.

But cigarettes still must kill a lot of us, for after we discovered Radon, and after subtracting for radon caused lung cancer, cigarettes were still number one. Or is that the case?

Well...you learn funny things in different jobs, and I've worked over sixty different jobs in my life, even though I'm only 36. One is Pest Control, where you get to learn how to use all kinds of dangerous poisons. And how such poisons can contaminate you.

There are three means of getting poison into you. Inhalation - breathing in. Ingestion - through your mouth and swallowed. And Absorption - through your skin.

Do you smell bleach when you use it? Do you smell gasoline when you fill your car's tank? You have then inhaled the poison. You smell by the detection of molecules of substances entering your nose. You couldn't smell the stuff unless you were being poisoned - and while perhaps just a little, I imagine you fill your car and clean your floors regularly. These things are all cancer causing poisons.

One of the poisons we must be licensed to use is Sodium Fluoride. It is very, very poisonous. You must exercise care in using it. You ingest this each morning and each evening, it's in your toothpaste right now as you read this. Really. And it's the sole "active" ingredient. If you think it doesn't matter because you don't swallow it, then why not gargle with some Raid tomorrow?

Do you think that because Raid would make you gag and Sodium Fluoride does not, that it must then be safe? Yet cigarettes don't make one gag, do they?

Do you live in a big city? The fumes you inhale from cars and industrial plants are said to be the equivalent of smoking a pack a day.

Do you have pest control? Then such chemicals are available to be inhaled and absorbed.

Do you use cleaning chemicals, but not always gloves? That's absorption.

In short, there are many, many poisons that all actually poison you, and can cause cancer.

Which one is the undiscovered radon? And is there an X factor unknown poison, a Xadon?

What will we find caused half of all lung cancer deaths next?

I would wonder, if the government knew that people didn't like pollution, but knew that they liked all these wealthy corporations donating to their campaigns, might they not wish to blame something besides all the big corporations for the lung cancer out there?

And what better thing to blame then that which gives pleasure to the masses of little people? A thing that allows them to piously tax us all the more for our own good?

After all, how dangerous can they think it is, when they outlaw pot, but leave cigarettes legal? And if they are so worried about us smoking, why is it legal for the tobacco companies to artificially enhance the addictive properties of cigarettes by 200%? And whyever would they subsidize those who grow this cruelly child killing substance?

It is easy to understand, when you realize that the government likes that for the same reason tobacco companies do. The addictive quality means .25 cents per pack profit for the companies. And a $2 tax for the government with each pack!

To keep us panicked over a fake danger, that allows them much revenue, while letting them protect their environmental rapist corporate friends from us knowing how much cancer their pollutants and products cause routinely.

Pretty clever.

Dean West

Don't Vote - It Only Encourages Them

2005-03-03T18:43:00.000-08:00

If you are a plantation slave, you must do as the master says.

This is wrong.

But...what if you could choose who your master would be? What if every four years, the master, and his wife, would put up posters saying, "I will be the kindest master" and "I will protect you from bandits" and "I will keep the roofs of your cabin fixed"?

And you could then choose the man master or woman master?

Would you feel happier, and would you then be free?

No. For you'd not be choosing whether or not to have a master, you'd only be choosing which master you'd slave for.

One might say there'd be a benefit to it, that it would encourage a more gentle master, since they'd want to keep their "job". The history of masters doesn't seem to support this though.

One might say that if you don't vote for who your master is, you can't complain about being whipped in the fields...but I disagree.

Let us examine that assertion:

You cannot complain if you....

1. Voted for the master who won, for you picked him.
2. Voted for the master who lost, for you participated, and shouldn't be a sore loser.
3. Did not vote at all, for you had your chance to make a difference and did not.

Hmmm....

Uh, in what world are you allowed to complain? Apparently none, to those who accept the "voting ritual" as good and proper.

Back to that plantation, if you saw the male and female contenders busy telling you how important voting was, would you not be suspicious?

Would you not then realize, "Hey, they just want me to vote so as to validate the system. Because if I'm voting, then no matter who I vote for to master me....I'm first and foremost agreeing that I should have a master!!!!"

Such a slave who realized that would be correct. And then, no matter how many of his fellow slaves said things like, "Hey, the woman says we'll get new quilts!", or "Hey, you have to at least vote against the one that's worse!", or "The bandits are everywhere, we must set aside differences and vote to make things as good as we can.", or "well, don't complain if the guy wins then, and you have extra work"...

He'd still sullenly sit there, maybe not sure of everything, but sure of one thing......

That while he has no choice but to toil in the fields, and to obey the Plantation rules or die...the masters yet give him a choice on whether he will validate them or not. And so with only that small protest available...he will at least do that.

And that's why I don't vote.

It really does only encourage them.

And what is this "vote" any way, but a most cowardly initiation of force? You would recoil from the thought of stealing from your neighbors to pay for your family camping trip - yet you see no problem with voting for Congressman Pork who promises to "Increase funding for our National Parks" which is but the same theft, simply once removed.

Apparently, theft from your neighbors is just fine, so long as you have someone else do it, and so long as you let your neighbor have an equal chance to rob you! What a fascinating game of Spin the Loaded Gun, where one never knows which group of us the gun will be pointed at, but if it stops pointed at us, we must then dig deep for the other man's pet projects.

Sometimes the gun points at us and we are robbed for road maintenance in Montana. Other times it points at others who are robbed for our Hydroelectric Plant. So many votes, so many spinning guns, so many robberies. We always get to point the voting gun at so many people for so much of what we want - and we always wonder why so many voting guns are pointed at us for so much of what others want!

We forget that while we want to soak the rich for that which benefits us, that the poor want to soak us for that which benefits them, and we all want to soak all - for after all, we're getting soaked here, and want some back!

It is as Frederic Bastiat said, "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

Let us each make a more moral decision, and just as we'd not pick up a gun to violate our neighbor's rights, let us not pick up a ballot to that same end. It is unfair to vote for a person, knowing that if that person gets in, that he will harm another as surely as he breathes, that his job as administrator of "legalized force" allows him to do nothing but.

Dean West

B'duh, b'duh, b'duh...That's All, Folks!

2005-03-02T12:12:00.000-08:00

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6989380

That link lets you check out the new generation of modern cartoons for the modern child. Go take a look. It'll only take a second. (Link courtesy of "Wait...What" of MSN Community Group "Shattered Illusion".)

There. That didn't take long did it? Did you like the new Bugs? How masculine he looks! Just like all the Adult Cartoon Shows that have been springing up in the wake of "The Simpsons" and "Futurama" success...

Clearly an agenda is at work here. But what?

It's not to appeal to little kids. Kids are kids, they don't have any preconceived ideas yet, and any given five year old could be as entertained with "Leave it to Beaver" reruns from the 1950s....or Conestoga Trail sing-alongs and campfire stories from the 1850s.

They are little kids, they aren't used to anything yet, so whatever you show or tell them is new and entertaining.

One motive might be to justify some executive or agency getting paid big bucks doing, "Market Research".

But that would only account for a bit of it. For why would "Market Research", a highly specialized and very accurate branch of psychology, indicate that this would be popular?

Easy.

The "kids" they are marketing to are not "kids"...except in intellect. The "kids" being marketed to are college age kids, from 18 to 25. That new demographic of "those who still live with mommy and daddy, not for the job market being bad, but because playing nintendo is funner then flipping burgers because even though that's all they qualify for it's lousy for their self-esteem".

These are the fresh crops of dull minds that we yearly harvest from our "publik skools". They are the ones you see being asked by Jay Leno, "Who is the President?" and the woman who stated earlier to him that she is majoring in Education giggles proudly over her lack of knowledge of such trivialities.

The ones you see on our Game Shows being asked such brain busters as "This Nazi German Dictator started WWII and his name is ----- Hitler". After the first person incorrectly guesses Arnold, the second one will tentatively answer, "Adolf?" and beam with pride and relief when told he is correct.

They are the ones who have driven corporate America to having to computerize all the cash registers at the fast food places, and set them up so that buttons with the Number Symbol of the food to be ordered can be pressed rather then prices and other aspects of "higher mathematics" be figured.

(Which is why when you are at McDonalds, and you say, "I'll have a Quarter Pounder and Fries" that the clerk will look puzzled and say, "You mean a Number 3?" - for he knows what the number 3 looks like, but reading a menu with the food name and price is generally beyond him.)

Such is the market for the new cartoons. Manly cartoon male figures, sexy cartoon female figures, for the post-adolescent in hormones and drive - but the pre-adolescent in intellect and comprehension.

You think I exaggerate? Not by much...if at all. Go to a fast food restauarant or Kwik-E-Stop (and note the phonetic spelling in this age of illiteracy) and con or cajole the "manager" into letting you see the job applications. Bring tissues, so you can blow your nose after weeping in fear for the future after reading the illiterate crayonings of the cataclysmically ignorant.

Next go to the Human Resources Department of a major corporation, and with a bit more effort (tell them you are a University Newspaper reporter) learn how it is there. The applications and resumes are better - thanks to pre-formatted resume building programs available on the net, and computer aided spell and grammar checking - but.....

But....

Ask them of the interviews. Learn the percentages of those males who show up wearing "grunge casual" or women who think Tammy Faye Baker level make up is a good thing. Learn of the stutterings and stammerings in answer to any question that departs from what schools now must try to teach as the "usual questions". Learn how those who conduct the interviews have had to be counseled and made to only ask the "expected" questions so as to insure that some applicants pass.

Learn the percent of those who hopelessly fail even that computer aided, school taught, dumbed down minimalistic procedure.

Now go find a teacher. I'm sorry, an Educator. Ask her who signed the Magna Carta. Or see if she even knows the year of the signing. Hell...just see if she knows what it is!

Come back afterwards and tell me if I exaggerate. No, really, go do that. Then come tell me I'm wrong.

I keep telling people to homeschool. I keep telling people our "Publik Skools" are Idiot Indoctrination Centers run by the idiots who were previously graduated with their peer group. Run by those we laughed at in College, for we all knew that the dumbest were hiding out in the Education field for four years so as to avoid math, physics, history and other "hard stuff".

When Fox News is popular, when leaders like Clinton and Bush are respected, when talking about Michael Jackson's exploits is regarded as having an intellectual conversation on modern issues, when companies have to hire middle managers and computer support workers from India because there aren't enough competent minds here, when to see an Asian professional is to breathe a sigh of relief for knowing that "At least this one will be able to help me", when to have the question "Can Teachers pass a GED test" brought up in a town is to ensure the threat of a Teacher strike if you try to find out...

And when to see cartoons drawn, and dialogue wrote, that is entirely inappropriate for children, but entirely "cool" for our overgrown, stay-at-home, "I gots self-ehsteem" kids...

Could it be safe to say that when you see all these things, and experience them daily, that maybe...just maybe...I'm right?

Must we be completely totalitarianistically governed or find our society in state of total collapse and barbarism before steps are taken?

Dean West

I had a dream...

2005-03-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

It's hard to fight for Civil Rights these days. You wouldn't believe the trouble my friends and I got into when we reported the Board of Regents to the F.B.I. for their violation of our Civil Rights......the right in question being the right to bear arms in the classroom.

Well, this was the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. There are bears...!

The F.B.I. field agent at the Federal Building...seemed very surprised. Like he wasn't sure if we were serious or not. He spent a long time asking us questions - mostly about our backgrounds while he ran our driver's licenses and social security numbers. You'd have thought he was investigating us...

The law was technically on our side. An obscure Civil Rights act from the 19th century says that it is a crime for anyone to in any way interfere with your exercising of your constitutional rights.

This was passed in 1879, I think, so as to give the government tools for dealing with the Klan. It mandates 10 years in prison and a ten thousand dollar fine.

Now the U.S. Constitution's 2nd amendment has been spoken of as a group right, not individual, yet in Alaska, their constitution is more specific. It says that, "Neither the state, nor any political subdivision of the state, shall infringe upon the individual right to keep and bear arms."

The civil rights statute applied to Federal and State constitutions.

So. The F.B.I. guy could see we could not just be dismissed out of hand. Yet even though he was supposed to, he did not go and arrest the Board of Regents. Instead he did what I expected him to do - he forwarded the matter to the U.S. Justice Department for investigation.

Where he knew and we knew that it would just be buried. But that was all right, for again, I'd expected that. And the next day, thanks to my friend at the newspaper, the headline read, "Board of Regents investigated by Justice Department"!

lol

Ask me if they were upset!

We lost by the way. We had to leave our guns in the dorms. Then they made it so we couldn't even go to the cafeteria with them. I'd say freedom is definitely dead in this country.

But I'd been kicked off campus by then anyway! I wonder if it was something I said?

Dean West

Disposable

2005-02-28T00:35:00.000-08:00

Governments treat their people as slaves, to be disposed of at convenience. The "better government" has only ever been defined by how much inconvenience they’ll suffer before disposing of a person. Never very much, even now.

People don’t like to hear the term "slaves", nor to hear politicians called "masters" - but we are slaves, and they are masters, nonetheless. Governments always treat us as slaves, to be disposed of at convenience. We all know the story of Stalin letting millions starve for his plans. We know what Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Dong did for their reforms. We learned as kids how evil Kings and cruel emperors would yell, "Off with his head", if a man glanced at him, etc.

But that’s only with "bad" governments, right? Wrong. It’s with all governments. In some cases, ours has endured more inconvenience then other governments, and not reacted as harshly. But always with the attitude of people being disposable, and always doing it to some extent.

For where are the Native Americans? Oh, but that was so long ago. Then what happened to the leader of the I.W.W. in the early 20th century? Yes, that’s right, he was killed by our government. So were many other suspected "anarchists" and "socialists", which right or wrong, had a right to think and speak.

What happened to the Japanese-Americans in World War II? Why were Native Alaskans pumped full of radioactive material by the government to see what would happen? Why all the young men drafted for all our wars? Why the Latter Day Saints forced to give up polygamy at bayonet point? Why 58,000 dead in Vietnam? Why 1,500 and rising dead in Iraq? Why a million and one different events, to great to list out, involving stealing, torturing, imprisoning, suspending rights, killing…and on and on and on?

Why, if not that we are disposable?

When even something as small and seemingly harmless as a new minimum wage law is enacted, it is known that some will be thrown out of work, so that the companies can afford to pay the new wage to the rest. The calculation involved is to wait until there are more voters who will benefit then voters who will lose. Then Timmy Frycook and Susan Assemblyworker are unemployed. Disposable, for the sake of the greater number of voters, which is to say, for the sake of our master in office. Must we live in a world where Susan must cry so you can have an extra buck?

Or can we treat people as people, and refuse to dispose of any?

Then we come to the police and courts that many minarchists and constitutionalists feel we need. These most definitely view us as disposable. There has never been a government yet that cared anything about crimes against the people, the way they actually do care about crimes against the masters.

As Henry David Thoreau pointed out, steal from a person and you will soon be through with your punishment, and be free again. Fail to pay your tax, and you will remain jailed until you do. Know that this still applies today.

For it is the case that you can declare bankruptcy and thereby defraud all companies that you owe - but you cannot be excused from back taxes or student loans or any other debt to the government. You may shoplift a $500 TV, and if a first offense get little more then probation. But if you owe $500 in taxes, the amount will skyrocket in fees and fines and penalties, assets will be seized, and you jailed, until it is all, and with interest to boot, paid. In no case will your failure to pay any tax at all be excused with you being on probation for a year. In no case can you save your house with a thirty day jail stay.

Kill my mother, and in many states it’s likely that life in prison is the maximum you may receive. Kill a government official, such as the Secretary of Agriculture, and it is a Federally mandated Death Penalty offense. Guess my mom’s life isn’t as valuable as the guy who stamps "Grade A" on my ground round.

Tell me I’m a bastard, and you hope someone kills me, and our masters smile and say, "Free Speech". Tell someone that the President is a bastard, and you hope someone kills him, and our masters frown and say, "Seize him" - and you are seized.

Every day in every way you see it. All through out history it has been proven. In no case is the government anything more then a master, in no case are you any thing else then a slave.

In all cases you are disposable.

Dean West

Mugged or Taxed?

2005-02-27T00:35:00.000-08:00

When a mugger robs me:

1. He has courage. He approaches me man to man, risking his own life, betting that he is stronger.

2. He is honest. He is robbing me for his own personal gain, and he makes no excuses.

3. He has integrity. Even though he has me helpless, all he does is take my money. He doesn't try to get me to say, "Thank you for assisting me Mr. Mugger." He doesn't try to get me to pretend it's for my own good.

4. He has goodness. For he spends all the money on people who specialize in creating happiness - liquor store owners, hookers, drug dealers, jewelery sellers, TV makers. It's not everyone's idea of happiness, but it's many people's.

When a government robs me:

1. They are cowards. For they pass their laws, but depend on local cops to kidnap and torture me, and kill me if need be, should I refuse.

2. They are dishonest. They pretend that each of them is selflessly serving mankind - though not a one of them doesn't campaign that his opponent is a crook. Each one is laughably supposed to be the "lone exception".

3. They have no integrity. When they have me helpless, it's not enough that they rob me. I must be encouraged to vote. I must be forced into their indoctrination centers from K-12 and learn that it is good. I must acknowledge that the policeman is my friend. I must disclose all my personal info so they can "better assist me".

4. He has evil. For he spends my money on people who specialize in creating pain, agony, disease and death - nerve gas makers, concentration camp guards, biological warfare researchers and bombs for liberating foreign innocents. This is everyone's idea of UNhappiness, except for a few sick bastards who truly think this serves some kind of good. More people think those things are bad then think drugs are bad, that's for sure.

Dean West

Proof and Agnosticism

2005-02-26T01:13:00.000-08:00

There are two opposing ideas on proof:

1. That you can never have it.

2. That you can sometimes have it.

If proof is in all cases impossible, then:

1. How do you "prove" that?

2. To say you can never have proof is to say you can never be sure of anything. Yet, you have sex a second time, but do not touch a hot plate a second time. Why? Is past experience a "proof" after all?

3. To debate whether proof is possible - why? If you believe proof is impossible, how do you know the other is disagreeing with you? Can you prove that when he contradicts you he's not actually agreeing with you?

4. To say it's okay for others to believe things are provable, but you don't want to - again, how do you know they say that?

5. To argue that no proof is possible puts you in the position of depending on your adversary. You must assume the truth of what your opposite says in the process of trying to deny it. Try to "prove" that no proof is possible, without using the assumption that proof is possible!

6. And try to do it without using the products of those who do believe in the provability of things - computers, phones, radio, pens, paper, etc. All these things are from the minds of men who "proved" they would work.

Those who believe proof IS possible might not have found a sure fire way of knowing all things yet. But they are ahead in one respect - they are in the game! If proof is possible then:

1. Debate and discussion are meaningful, for one might win, but both will learn.

2. While it doesn't let you know everything, it lets you "know what you know".

3. You do not depend on your adversary's ideas in putting forth your own.

Now there is a concept of Agnosticism, wherein it is suggested that the wise man takes no stance. It is a concept with two meanings, one seemingly true, and one false.

1. Agnosticism: "I have no proof to support any conclusions on this issue of 'do animals think' so I take no sides until I do."

2. Agnosticism: "Since you can't prove to me ghosts don't exist, I will keep an open mind!"

Note the subtle distinction here, in a world that uses the same word for both ideas. In the one, a man is literally claiming "no knowledge - a gnostic" ("a" means "no", like in the word a - theist). He has heard an issue, and lacks the information to take a side.

In the second, he has heard something different. Instead of hearing an issue that involves two roughly equal possibilities (animals thinking in some manner, or not thinking in any manner), he is hearing of an extraordinary claim. It involves not an equal possibility (ghosts exist or do not), but rather a claim in which it is overwhelmingly possible that some people are crazy, lieing, hallucinating or tricked, and highly unlikely that all of man's knowledge of reality is false.

Who determines which issues are capable of being agnostic on, and not others?

Well, the odd thing is that in science, real science, there are NO issues to be agnostic on!
How it works in real science is that you start with your knowledge of the accepted facts of man - in theory this was proven to you in school - and don't believe anything else new without proof of the new thing. (How things are proved is a separate discussion)

When any claim is introduced, such as animals thinking in some fashion, you politely ask, "Proof?". If none is given, you do NOT believe it! It is not a case of it being all right to be agnostic or undecided, it is a case of there is no reason to clutter your mind with every assertion a person wanders by with, whether animal thoughts or ghosts.

Can it be said, "But isn't the person who denies ghosts, introducing a claim? We shouldn't believe him till he proves it!" Wrong. The introducer of any claim is the person who says, "X is", a positive claim. For no one says a thing is not, before hearing another say a thing is.

If I say "Glomding is" I must prove it. If I say, "Glomding is not", I am only asserting that I've heard no proof of Glomding such as would convince me. I do not have to prove my position on the denial, it is sufficient to say, "You provided no credible proof." Note that I must be open to real proof in the saying of this, and should be willing and able to show the introducer's error, if he attempted some proof.

Therefore, claims of animal's thinking and ghosts existing - or God or Oblivion - are introduced claims, not to be agnostic on, but to be denied until the claimer proves it. Oh, sure, this is where someone usually says, "Oh yeah? Well when Thomas Jefferson heard a report of an meteorite, he said that he'd sooner believe a yankee professor would lie, then that a rock fell from the sky! But he was wrong! He should have been agnostic on the issue!"

No. Thomas Jefferson was not wrong. He was correct to refuse to believe the story of the meteorite. Not because it didn't fall, but because he was given no proof. As I believe Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Until Jefferson had it, he would have been silly to believe in flying rocks. Had he said, "I will be agnostic, neither believing or not" - what clutter! How many other reports of other strange things existed in his time, from astrology to zoroastrianism, all of which he is to hold in his mind as possible? The idea of "no way to know either way" pollutes a man, and takes him quickly to, "no way to know anything".

Agnosticism is a dangerous thing, and the idea of it should be eliminated. It is eliminated in the hard sciences, which is why we have rockets, plastics, vaccines and electronics - to name a few.

It is alive and well in the soft, or social, sciences, which is why we have insanity, wars, riots, crime and injustice - to name a few.

(I note in passing the general public's vague awareness of this in refering to one as Hard and the other as Soft.)

Why has hard science done so well, and the soft sciences so poorly? It is NOT because social sciences don't have right and wrong answers, though the teachers say that. It is because the teachers say that!

Look back in history, to another group who were agnostic and mystical in outlook - the alchemists! So long as these guys figured, "Nothing can be proven, maybe it's this, maybe it's that, but if the gods will it, so will it be." then they failed completely. Was this because there were no right and wrong answers in the field of chemistry, or because they said there were none?

Note when some started to say that there were right and wrong ways to mix things, to select and test things, to catalogue things...they became chemists!

Our social scientists are doing little more then chant over a steaming cauldron of eye of newt and wing of bat - and arguing amongst themselves as to whether the wolf fang should be stole by a virgin or a stripling! The future will make no distinction between the words Shaman, Priest, Psychologist, Astrologer, Social Scientist. Any more then we distinguish between necromancers, wizards and sorcerers in the Alchemical world.

They will all be known as Witch Doctors. Those who were agnostic when it came to what really worked or didn't work, with humans and human societies.

Some, like Desmond Morris, Arthur Koestler, Jared Diamond and even Ayn Rand, have already made steps in the turning the soft sciences hard...but we have far to go.

The first step of the alchemists was not to create plutonium from uranium. It was to admit that wishing (or skepticism about reality) doesn't create anything, chants (or educationese and jargon) don't make false things work, that your fellow sorcerers (or social scientists) agreeing with your mistakes means nothing, and your Godly intentions (or hoped for social benefits) don't mean your right.

With that learned, they could start on the path that has let us receive many good things from them - medicine, X-rays, etc.

And many bad things like Atomic Bombs and Nerve Gas - used by leaders who are educated and advised by all our social scientists!

Let one social scientist learn that agnosticism is false, and proof is necessary for everything. Let it grow from there. We may not see the end of the tunnel, but I'd like us to at least get started down the tunnel.

Dean West

Basic Reality

2005-02-25T23:10:00.000-08:00

There is that which is Everything that Exists, this we call Existence, or "The Universe as a Whole"

Within that there is our Known Universe, started by a Big Bang, about 13 billion years ago.

This universe (the known one) is made up of what we call a "spacetime continuum". Stars, planets, and all else, are in this spacetime continuum.

This spacetime continuum is made up of dimensions. There are the three spatial dimensions we observe. There is the temporal one we observe. And there are probably up to 26 dimensions total, most of which we do not observe.

Our spacetime continuum is real. It exists, as does all else. The dimensions exist, for even though we do not observe them all, there are experiments in math and in reality that...so far...tend to confirm them.

Now, none of that has anything to do with alternate universes. That is only the way this known universe is.

This known universe, is in that greater existent, The Universe as a Whole. It is likely that there are other "known universes" in that greater existent. Imagine a whole infinite slew of bubbles floating, jostling, moving in greater Universe as a Whole. (we could be the only bubble, we have no proof of others, but usually things are not so unique)

And each of these soap bubble "known universes" is different, they may have different physical laws, and stuff like that. Our soap bubble "known universe" is just one.

Now, none of that has anything to do with alternate universes. That is only the way the Universe as a Whole is.

Where alternates do come in, is when you take a closer look at one of the soap bubbles, in this case, ours.

You would, if able to look at it from the outside, standing in the Universe as a Whole viewing box, so to speak, observe that the bubble is very fuzzy.

The bubble is not so much represented by a line circle, but by a series of pointilist dots, which become dense enough in one general area to have the appearance of a circle.

To the left, right, up and down of the circle are other circles, overlayed, each ever so slightly off. Some are way off. Most are clustered. At the core, it is densest, and that is where are particular quantum probability lies, where are specific thread of the known universe lies.

The other dots as lines are varying other alternate versions of this soap bubble we are in. Most are so staggeringly close, that to speak of which one is real is irrelevent. They are all real, to those in them. And even real to us. But there is no "proper" one, that is better or worse intrinsically.

There is only that some are far more probable then others, and all these most probable ones are clustered, the others aren't.

That is what is.

Dean West

Beam me up, Scotty!

2005-02-24T23:10:00.000-08:00

Transporter technology is...let us say impossible, or at least so improbable as that it may as well be.

1. The heat energy needed to dematerialize a person into their quarks would be about a million times hotter then our sun.

2. The energy needed in such a machine would be several times what mankind uses total, all over Earth.

3. Our computing machines would need to be more efficient by a 1000 billion billion times at least.

4. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would make knowing the exact position and momentum of your constituent particles impossible to know.

For an in depth analysis of all these problems...and more...see the book, "The Physics of Star Trek". Though I can explain any one of those problems.

There are also...though that book did not address it, metaphysical problems with such a device.

It would not really be "you" at the other end, more just an exact copy. Now if you were at the other end...you'd have all the memories and personality and looks...you'd even think, "Dean was wrong"....but you'd still be just a copy.

I could explain that further too, if you liked.

In the realm of instantaneous transportation, think more of a punch or tunnel through the spacetime fabric.

Fold a piece of paper in half. Crease up. Look at a point on the side facing you. Now imagine how long the journey would be for an ant to walk all the way to the fold and down to the other side, just opposite of that point.

A long way.

Now take a pencil and punch a hole in the paper...through both the front and back flaps.

Now the ant need not walk to the top of the fold, he can walk through the hole.

Since our spacetime continuum is crumpled up like a piece of paper, there would be a variety of places to punch through to.

This requires technology that is too far in advance of us to reasonably expect to see this within 500 years.

And an unknown substance that as far as we know does not exist.

And an energy expenditure in excess of what the industrial plants of Earth could be expected to generate in a century.

And may not be stable, or sustainable of life.

Yet these are thought to be far, far more probable, that we might one day work the bugs out, and actually do this.

And there are no metaphysical issues of "who comes out the other end" to worry about!

Dean West

Net World IS Real World

2005-02-23T18:42:00.000-08:00

I think that a fundamental shift has occurred and is still occurring wherein it is not "Just the Net" any more.

Net World IS the Real World.

People meet for fun and sharing. They have done this from the dawn of time.

At one point this was caves, then straw and mud huts, then much later, Men's Clubs and Women's Clubs and Churches made out of brick and mortar.

Then later, out of aluminum siding and plaster.

Now we have our clubs made out of electrons, out of pixels, out of binary codes....

Yet whether in a cave or on a computer, it is people meeting and interacting and sharing.

Some ask what a e-community manager's responsibility is. It is the same as the person who's cave it is. It is the same as a Club President, the same as a minister of a church.

It is to keep the peace and to make sure that the environment is safe for those who are only here for the sharing and exchange. For those who follow the Code of Conduct.

This does not simply mean that the person in charge is to wait on the sidelines for an altercation to erupt, though in the case of some members who have never done wrong before it works out that way.

It also means being proactive. Which many managers do. Some MSN community managers, for instance, require a membership application. It is not generally mentioned, but there are times where a person might be declined.

Why?

Well, if a minister knows that someone has no intent but to disrupt services at church, why accept him in the first place? What good would it do to let that one in, then wait for him to attack a member or members, then when the damage is done, push him out?

No good at all. Which is why church ministers, club presidents, and MSN community managers often like to do a screening, and keep out trouble makers....when they know that they are trouble makers.

However....the situation has gotten worse the past few years.

The net is not simply for some few nerds or rich folk. Everyone has a computer...or at least so many as to make that statement not jar too badly.

We who are on the net are not those who, "Have no lives"....no, the net is where we choose to live our lives, many millions of us....many tens of millions of us. More then most nations can boast of.

All human interactions short of "touch" can be done on line. We work on line, we chat on line, we watch and listen and talk with cameras and mikes. We read on line, we can go to school, we can fellowship with co-religionists, attend seminars, conventions. We meet and make friends, we find romance and love, even marriage partners.

There are those alive today who'd not have been born were it not for their parents meeting on line.

It's time we stopped excusing certain vile forms of behavior and attacks on the net with the annoying mantra of "It's just the Net".

It's not "just" anything, when it impacts so many tens of millions of people so strongly, so deeply, so personally that we see lives being destroyed....and lives being created....and lives in all stages in between.

There is no "just" in that.

Net World IS the Real World.

Now. What does that mean?

It means that we need to take a more proactive stance against the net criminals and cyberstalkers that prowl and skulk around these communities. If a person had attended three churches in one town, and shouted obscenities in each.....what minister would see that man on the member rolls of his own church, and not be concerned?

Does this mean the minister...or community manager....should instantly ban or bar? I would think that in "real" life as traditionally understood, that such a person would be brought in to talk. He would be asked to explain the issues of concern. And if the answers were not satisfying, he would be barred. Or she.

Likewise this should apply on the net. There are some in MSN Communities who are known to be venemous spewers of hate and bile. Who emotionally rape other members in ways that it would be difficult for some reading this to believe. I am as we speak involved in defending a woman named Cathy who has tremendously suffered by having some net thugs post pictures of her dead child all over the net, with captions like, "It's cold in my coffin, mommy, let me out."......and much worse things then that. Then they post her actual physical address which they tracked, so that any person could find her.

Here is a concept that we all could do right now. It's called shunning. We have no police here, MSN is lousy at that, and they care less then real cops do. I have not the infinite ability to deal with these thugs, but if they were shunned, if they were forced back into a few places, that would work wonders.

There is a need for such types to be identified...and banned. Even before they do something specifically on any given board. Managers who condone them...need to be barred from other places, shunned themselves, shut down if possible. We should not wait for a member to be killed, or to kill themselves, before we then can act.

I also believe that MSN (and Yahoo, etc.) has dropped the ball. They provide these communities, they know these things go on, yet they are cataclysmically slow to respond - and their "response" is usually woefully inadequate. There are some easy things they could do that would put an end to all this cyberstalking quite easily though.

1. Require a valid credit card number of any net nic a person has. Let no one be on the boards who's full name and actual address is not known to MSN or the other service providers.

2. Prohibit the creation of community groups at whim. As it is now, anyone can create a group, and there are whole communities created for no other reason then harming others, and they are created with fake nics. The creation of a community should require another application process, and the entering of the same credit card number as the net nic that is seeking to make the community used in the first place.

3. MSN should be required by law to see to it that the credit card holder's address matches with the physical address of the computer he/she is using. Hard for them to do? You bet. They'd have to liaison with hundreds of phone companies and cable service providers all over the planet. Yet if we were each charged an initial fee of $25, and $5 per month thereafter, that would more then cover it.

4. No second chances. When it's found that someone has posted an address, or porn, or such other material that violates the Code of Conduct we all agreed to, then MSN should not only delete that person's nic, but see to it that another nic can not be purchased with that same credit card, that same name, that same address ever again. If a new person buys that house, then that will be a person with a different name and card number. But the same person at the same address should not be able to reapply with a second card. Nor simply create new nics at a library computer with the same credit card.

Our government has similarily dropped the ball. They love to speak of taxing the net, of grabbing some of the money that others make...but where are they when it comes to our lives being endangered? No where.

Oh, you'll occassionally hear of some child porn sting, and that's good as far as it goes, but the enforcement even of that is spotty and random and all but non-existent.

When a man or woman contacts the police and says, "This person on the net threatened to kill me." or "This person on the net posted my real address." then there should be laws in place that allow them to go to MSN - or Yahoo, or any where - and say, "Give us the real name and address of the person who posted this."

Then laws need to be in place to allow them to go and arrest that person for the crime of "menacing" or whatever it is called in each nation. And the punishment should be severe, not less then six months in prison. Which considering the danger a person is in when their address is posted, that is hardly too severe a punishment for the person who posted it.

I am tired of the net being some free for all place where losers can vent and hiss and spit things they'd be terrified to say if they were off line - or if their own names and addresses were known.

While I oppose taxation, we don't have private agencies for handling this, so if the police need funding, I'd suggest that rather then tax the citizens, that they take a ten percent cut of that $25 initial fee we'd pay to MSN, then a ten percent cut of that $5 per month fee.

This stuff isn't brain surgery. It only requires common sense and a sense of dignity and a regard for the intrinsic worth of human life. A knowledge that free speech and threats and harassment are not semantically equal concepts.

For while it can easily be shown that there are people alive today who's parents met on the net, it can even more be shown that there are too many suicides and murders as the result of the same net. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of my kids being threatened by these skulking cowards, I'm tired of seeing this woman I'm defending being threatened by sociopaths, I'm tired of all these cowardly jerks hiding in the anonymity of the net, speaking on matters they'd be scared to whisper to me off line.

I'm tired of wondering each time a person stops posting - did they tire of it? Or was the person who flamed and threatened them last month more serious then I thought?

Dean West

Survivalism

2005-02-22T18:10:00.000-08:00

There is a concept called Survivalism, but I call it Preparedness because I don't like the other word's connotations. I am not into it as much as I should be, but I strive to get better. By better I mean, we should all take a cue from the Latter Day Saints and have plenty of food and supplies stocked up for emergencies. Unless we'd rather that in the event of a collapse, only the Saints would have the means to rebuild - and call the shots.

I won't bore you here with the list of things to get. At a minimum it starts with a back pack of camping gear at one end, and at a maximum could well go up to a solar-powered house with it's own well on five acres of a self-sufficient farm at the other end! There are geographic and population considerations, too. Claire Wolfe's book "101 Things To Do Until The Revolution" has plenty of good ideas on all of it, and there are plenty of other Preparedness books out there.

At base, make sure you have a full outfit of camping gear, sets of clothes appropriate to the worst environment you have (Cold or Wet Weather), at least one month of food (if only Top Ramen, Rice and canned vegetables), ten 1 gallon containers of water, and a weapon (preferably a shot gun, if you are getting only one). Grow from there.

Is there a need for preparedness?

Consider....

"Far called our navies melt away,
On dune and headland, ‘neath the fire,
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday,
Is one with Ninevah and Tyre."

From Rudyard Kipling’s "Recessional"

To predict or imagine the collapse of the greatest empire the world had ever known was pretty foolish and kooky. Except that since Kipling wrote that about the British Empire, we all see the sun set on it every 24 hours! For it is no more.

As collapses go, the British did it as nicely and properly as they could. More like a slow motion lobotomy, then the typical violent suicide of most nations. In any case, I doubt that we’d be so lucky. And when Britain fell, there was still us, when we fall…who knows?

That’s one scenario for a collapse, the "one extra regulation too many" one.

The other scenario, more popular during the Cold War, is the big boys getting to dazzled by their own propaganda and hype, and taking us all back to the Stone Age with some massive exchange of nuclear warheads. The Soviet Union is no more, but I find that having a dozen potential madmen instead of one, does not make me rest easier. And what is China up to?

What’s to be done about those kind of things? Nothing. There isn’t anything that will prevent a collapse or nuclear exchange, until the day comes when we have enough Anarchists to insist on some much needed changes in economic and foreign policy. Or put another way, we’re probably looking at least a century before we could make a real difference, unless these Anarchic ideas really take off.

There is a recurring theme in science fiction books that deal with the issue of civilizations falling.

In Isaac Asimov’s "Foundation" trilogy, he imagined that a group of scientists and their families immigrated to a planet on the edge of the Galaxy, and so when the collapse came, they were safe with the collected mass of human knowledge. The scientists called the group, "The Encyclopedia Foundation", and their goal was to shorten the coming Dark Age from 30,000 years, to 1,000 years.

In Larry Niven’s and Jerry Pournelle’s book, "The Mote in God’s Eye", we meet aliens for the first time, and they are smarter then us, but trapped in their own star system, and subject to periodic collapses due to wars over limited resources. These aliens have scattered over their planet a series of "museums" that can only be accessed with a knowledge of basic astronomy. Once in, it’s a guide as to how to rebuild civilization from steam engines to atomic power. These are so when a collapse comes, then as soon as a primitive tribe becomes aware of the celestial patterns, they can open the museum and advance faster.

In Walter M. Miller Jr.’s book, "A Canticle for Leibowitz", our governments laid waste to the Earth with a nuclear war. A scientist named Leibowitz made it his mission to collect and preserve knowledge and did so until killed by book burners. The Catholic church made him a Saint, and one of their Orders became the "The Order of St. Leibowitz". They made it their mission to collect every scrap of pre-war papers, books and scraps they could find.

Finally, the long dark age was over, thanks in part to the Order. Space flight becomes possible, and the Order prepares to send off copies of all their files to another planet. They do this just in time, for predictably enough, the new governments laid waste to the Earth with a nuclear war.

What’s the point of all that? The point is that all history shows that governments always push it too far, they can never leave bad enough alone. So some kind of disaster, never minding exactly what, is all but inevitable. Doesn’t have to be this year. Nor this decade or century. But on such things as governmental madness, I always like to bet sooner rather then later! What happens then?

Those intellectual and productive giants did so well in the Galt’s Gulch of Ayn Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged". Farms and factories and mines and mills. But in truth, such things are much harder then Rand thought.

If you do get far into preparedness, then you will need to put a little bit of "preparedness" into the building. You need a well, some solar panels, some emergency medical supplies - all there for when disaster strikes. This will put you way ahead of things, and is easier then trying to get those things after a collapse.

If you are doing preparedness, you need to get all the books on how to re-build civilization should there be this general collapse many believe can happen. But just getting books on how to re-build to a nineteenth century level is quite daunting - I know, I’m still collecting such books!
And an important task.

For the Randian heroes couldn’t really have started farming as quickly and easily as they did. Dwight Sanders, a character in "Atlas Shrugged", who had built aircraft for a living, quit to move to Galt’s Gulch and said, "I’m doing quite well at producing ham and bacon without the men from whom I used to buy it." Perhaps. But perhaps it would be better to have a variety of books on that subject, for while one sounds fancier, there is as much to raising livestock well as building a plane well.

Books on farming, homesteading, canning, husbandry, mining, smelting, blacksmithing are just a few of the books that those in Galt’s Gulch would have needed. And no genius knows all the figures in the Machinist’s Handbook. Go get one and you’ll see what I mean.

It would be nice if your house/farm were a "Galt’s Gulch" in the sense that they were all self-sufficient in power, in water, plenty of food, plenty of books, tools and supplies. The more self-sufficient your house is, the less you would need fear natural disasters, or governmental ones.
And do we really want to leave it to others to do this? Better the Latter Day Saints or the Catholics or even the Hare Krishnas, then no one at all. But better still it be us, too, the Rationalists, the Voluntarists.

Have basic preparedness gear at home. Have all the proper tools, supplies and books.

See to it that whether a power outage, a tornado or the collapse of civilization occurs, that you and yours will be safe. Start small. Get what you can, do what you can, be aware of the situation. That's all. Nothing fanatical, just practical.

Dean West

Existence exists

2005-02-21T23:10:00.000-08:00

There is a concept out there of "The Universe". It is "that which is everything that exists". Since any "cause" of this concept is itself an existent, it to then is a part of the concept "The Universe".

Now since "something" cannot have come from "nothing", we know that there will have to be one existent that exists eternally without itself being caused. We know this because "something" (us, at least) is here.

Some people like to say, "The Universe" cannot be it's own cause, it cannot be eternal, so there must be a concept called "God" - and he gets to be the uncaused eternal.

One, why bother? If you must ascribe the attribute of eternity to anything, why not what you see and know of, rather then something unseen and speculated?

Two, and this is my main point, if a thing called "God" is introduced as a cause of "that which is everything that exists", well, that thing called "God" is itself an existent and a part of "that which is everthing that exists" - the very thing we were seeking the cause of!

The biggest fallacy in the whole debate over God/Non-God is NOT that there is no proof of his existence - that's just the second biggest fallacy.

The biggest fallacy is to assume that "that which is everything that exists" had a "cause", or a creation, when logically, it could not have. The question, "What created the Universe?" has as little meaning as "What flavor is blue?". You can ask the question, you can make those word-sounds, but they have no meaning. Blue has no flavor, and the entirety of existence has no cause.

(Before responding, please keep in mind the distinction between the "Known Universe" generally believed to have started with the Big Bang, versus what I am talking about, "The Universe as a Whole" or the "Entirety of Existence" which includes the "Known Universe", the Big Bang, and anything that caused the Big Bang.)

Dean West

Our Racist Media

2005-02-20T00:05:00.000-08:00

In the movie "Men In Black" there is a scene where an alien spacecraft carrying an alien criminal has just crashed in front of two men from an agency charged with protecting Earth from "the scum of the Universe".

The alien steps into the door way and expresses his displeasure at them shooting his ship down.

Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K says calmly and professionally: "You're under arrest for violation section 4153 of the Tycho Treaty."

Will Smith as Agent J says cockily and in an urban slang drawl: "So hand over whatevuh galaxy you might be carrying and step out o' yo busted ass vehicle and put yo hands on yo hade."

So what am I telling you this for?

To illustrate the racism prevalent in our media and our society.

On the surface of course, there was no racism in this movie. Or many of the movies made similarily to this. After all, the lead characters were Tommy Lee Jones, a white man, paired with Will Smith, a black man.

So a black man has one of the lead roles in the film, and it portrays whites and blacks working together in harmony. Where's the problem?

The problem is this, and it is very widespread. The movie teaches white kids to aspire up, and black kids to aspire down.

In Tommy Lee Jones character is everything professional and urbane. Cultured, intelligent, calm and reserved. Clearly a man with an education.

In Will Smith's character is everything sloppy and "street". Uncultured, ignorant, brash and goofy. Clearly a man with no education.

Of course the makers would say that the aspects of Will Smith's character I named are really just a reflection of real cultural differences, that blacks understand that Will Smith's character is smart, it's just his character was, "Keepin' it real".

Yeah, right.

Not because many blacks do not speak that way or do not think of that as "Keepin' it real". Any more then many whites don't speak as Tommy Lee Jone's character did, and think of that as similarily being "efficient" and "upper class".

It's because in each race there are a whole spectrum of behavioristic attitudes, speech patterns and mannerisms. And depending on which a person of either race chooses, depends on how well he'll do in real life.

The whites and the blacks who speak like Tommy Lee Jone's character speak do well. They rise up in our society, they get the job and then the career. They get the starter home and then the four bedroom home. The Ford Escort and then the Lexus. No matter whether they are black or white, if they value education, and conduct and comport themselves like they do value it, they go further.

If they don't value, or don't display that they value such things, then black or white, they are not as successful. Period.

White kids are raised in a culture in which the media - while knowing that many whites do not value or show signs of education - consistently show white heroes who are urbane and polished. From Tommy Lee Jone's character in MIB to James Bond to even William Wallace in "Braveheart" knowing French and Latin.

This isn't because all whites love education and reflect it in their speech and attitudes. Quite the opposite, those who DO value education in the white race (or any race) are but a small percent of the whole. Yet the media, instead of reflecting the reality of that, decides to trot out white character after white character to show that education and refinement are "cool" and "still tough" and "successful".

And while the blacks have the exact same percentages of intelligence and unintelligence as any other race, the media in these movies decide to predominantly show black heroes as they do Will Smith's character - as a bunch of slang talking, brash, ill-mannered, street wise punks "jest keepin' reee-yal!"

I am sorry for the African American children who have such as their role models. Who grow up thinking that this is how it is supposed to be. Who are taught in our TV shows, our movies, and our music that cultured and intelligent behavior is the province of "wussy ass white folk" and that brash and ignorant behavior is the province of being "real" and "honest".

No other race on Earth has so many influences focused on it to keep them down as the American blacks. The movies, the TV and the music all work to train the next generation of black children to talk street, and to take cultured behavior as some kind of "bs" that is fake and duplicitous - instead of as the passport to wealth, security and success that it really is.

The Jewish, Asian and European descended Americans are busy teaching their kids the value of a good education - and the races that do this most are the most successful, and we all know which of those three ethnic groups focuses most on that, and which second and which third, don't we?

Sure we do, just as we know that any movie with a Jew is going to show an Accountant or a Banker or an otherwise wealthy, intellectual and succesful worker. Just as we know that any movie showing an Asian is going to show someone who whether good or bad is at least intensely clever, be he a young executive, a wise old man, or a cunning crime boss.

And whites? Well, so long as the whites portrayed aren't from the South, they will be shown as being succesful due to education and civilized mannerisms. And if they are from the South, then as far as Hollywood is concerned, they are black. For the only other population on Earth to get any where near the crap that Hollywood dishes the blacks is the Southern people of the United States - and the "Christians", but I repeat myself.

Yes, if you are Southern child or Christian child, then your name must be Bubba, and you must love tractor pulls. Our nation being predominantly founded and led by Great Southern Intellectuals like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry notwithstanding.

But even such as they get to see the portrayal of education loving Southern Gentlemen on TV now and again. But you will watch many hours of TV in a quest for an urbane and cultured black man.

When you've said "Bill Cosby as Dr. Huxtable", you've about said it all. Even the black "Benjamin Cisco" of Star Trek's "Deep Space Nine" was portrayed as the worst and dumbest of the Captains, prone to doubts, screw ups, wishy-washiness and a belief in mystically ignorant crap.

One time in media history was there a TV show about a successfully yuppie black family. He was a doctor, she a lawyer, the kids uniformly bringing home As from school - and not "poppin' caps in yo ass".

What a wildly popular show that was, no doubt due to the 75% of blacks who in spite of every effort of our media masters do strive for excellence. And due to the many white people who know of such black families who rather then living in "the hood" and "popping caps in asses" are actually working and living and loving and laughing and striving just like the rest of us.

I pity the lower class blacks more then I do the lower class whites though. For while lower class whites know that they are pathetic, and see that they are supposed to do better, the lower class black child is taught that in being poor he is "keepin' it real".

Did you know that blacks and whites really are equal in intelligence? Yes, they actually are. So when the lower class whites and lower class blacks are each exposed to TV, then they each are influenced the same. And while the lower class whites are exposed to a message that shames them and tells them that only through education and culture can you be taken seriously, lower class black parents are taught that education is a sham, culture is a pretense, civilization is a bs game and fake and hypocritical and all else that is bad.

Which is why lower class white parents still...to an extent...have a grudging admiration for a smart lower class white kid. And why lower class black parents tell such smart lower class black kids that they are "tomming" and "trying to be like whitey" and "selling out" and that they are an "oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside).

When does a lower class white person get insulted? When he's stupid, or ignorant, or acts as he is - lower class. He's slumming, or ill-bred or raised in a barn if he does those things - and it's his fellow lower class family and friends that will tell him so! But when does a lower class black person get insulted? When he's intelligent, or educated, or acts upper class. He's then "tomming" or "an oreo" or a "sell-out" if he does those things.

And it's his fellow lower class family and friends that will tell him so!

What a horrible reversal, and the media brainwashing lower class blacks is solely responsible. For no race on Earth in all of history has ever acted that way, before our media started pushing that message 24/7 for the past 50 years!

What other race is portrayed by the media like blacks? And in what other race do parents, family and friends mock the smart ones and strivers like the lower class blacks do? No other race. This should tell us something.

It can tell you that blacks are inherently inferior, and our media simply reflects this sad reality. Or it can tell you that I am completely right in my assessment, and that our media has it in for the blacks. The southerners and Christians, too, but the blacks most of all.

I would not worry about blacks not being shown in lead roles so much. Obviously 10 percent of the population should not be expected to be in more then 10 percent of the roles. But the types of roles they are given....ahhh, that is the real issue. For whether it is the role of "Mamie" in "Gone With The Wind" or the role of "Agent J" in "Men In Black" it is all for the worst when it comes to showing black children their real and true potential.

Let us all be aware of this, and to the extent we can, encourage our media to portray some real role models for black children. Not to lie, or pretend - that is what they do now when they show all these gangstas and rappers and street thugs that to believe them make up the whole of the black populace - but to show the real face of black America in executives, doctors and thinkers.

I'd like to see a movie in which the black Will Smith says, "You're under arrest for violation section 4153 of the Tycho Treaty." and the white Tommy Lee Jones says, "So hand over whatevuh galaxy you might be carrying and step out o' yo busted ass vehicle and put yo hands on yo hade."

And that my wish seems funny and odd to you is EXACTLY why I am correct in my assessment.

Dean West

The Root of All Evil

2005-02-19T01:01:00.000-08:00

I would ascribe the root of all evil as the initiation of force against another.

I would characterize such a thing as man (generic sense) acting against man's nature. Man is said to be the rational animal, we can survive without using force against innocent beings, including each other.

Two animals may fight over one stalk of wheat, man is at least capable of having one pick out the seeds and the other plant them, and both have more then they would have for the battle over one stalk.

Our means of survival is our mind, that allows us to change our environment in ways to better live and thrive. It allows not simply to collect the bounty in nature, but to improve and adjust it in ways that allow our numbers to grow.

When a man uses force to live, he repudiates his humanity, he declares himself an animal. The bank robber says in effect, "I have not the rationality to create and/or produce for myself, I have no value to trade for another, I have no abilities that other men might assist me for the sake of me assisting them. So like a jackal, I must feed off of another man's leavings."

When a man does not use force to live, he affirms his humanity. He states in effect, "My fellow men are neither my masters or my slaves, they are my brothers. I may labor and create and produce, they will labor and create and produce, and in the trading and specialization of our abilities, I and my brothers will all be the better off."

The first course produces destruction and pain and ultimately death.

The second course produces values and happiness and life.

The first course is evil.

The second course is good.

(these ideas I attribute largely to Ayn Rand, though they are not unique to her, and even Lao-Tzu had passages suggestive of some of the ideas on human interaction as just described above.)

In all evil that you see, you will see an initiation of force. Murder, arson, rape, theft, beatings...they are evil only due to the factor of initiated force.

Subtracted, those concepts become Self-Defense, Demolition, Consensual Sex, Property Recovery, Boxing.

Some have made the mistake of putting the word 'evil' on things such as storms, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes. Such things have no motives, there is no consciousness to initiate force.

Were one to assume a cosmic being, fully able to prevent such things, then one could assign the word evil to the creator of such things, but the things (storms and such) would be no more good or evil then a kitchen knife.

The elimination of evil that men do is likely never to be 100% successful. But if we would consistently teach our children that force initiation is wrong, and practice that as well as preach it, there would be less of it.

But this does not mean telling a child that owning slaves is wrong, forcing people to act against their will is wrong, then going off to vote for a person who's sole job is to exercise executive power in the enforcement of orders, directives and laws that many find personally offensive and destructive of their livelihoods and beliefs.

You cannot teach that stealing is wrong - but not if you call it a different name like 'tax'. You cannot teach that slavery is wrong - unless you call them 'citizens'. You cannot teach that violence is wrong - unless someone smokes pot, then he needs to be raped in prison.

You cannot teach the concept of humanity in such a fashion, and expect to see a lessening of evil. Only the remarkable goodness of man, our remarkable ability to be taught so poorly but strive for the right so well, has kept us from being an open society of cannibals.

If the majority of us do not initiate force, do not do evil now, in our society as it is, imagine how much less evil would be done in society as it could be?

Yet such a utopian sounding society starts not with great movements or massive reforms, or laws, or campaigns.

It starts with you, it starts with your children, it starts right there at home, in how you act and what you teach.

Of any thing that might be speculated on, discussed, or wished, that one thing is most definitely in your power, and would work to lessen evil. When enough do this, there will be noticeable results, but that you do it is all that's really important.

Dean West

Calling Congressmen

2005-02-18T01:25:00.000-08:00

When calling an elected official, do not call the 202 area code! That's Washington, D.C. and I can assure you that do not care to hear from you!

Everyone thinks when you call the Senator or Representative's office there that you are getting the actual office. You are not. You are getting a giant switchboard where your message is classified, logged in, tallied, filed, and forgot.

Along with the other 25,000 messages that came in from all across our nation of over a quarter of a BILLION people! And, believe it or not, all the calls from those overseas who seek to influence our nation.

Do the elected officials pay attention to it? Well, sometimes to give them a semblence of credibility, they might quote some phone stats if it helps them. They might say, "My office received 10,000 calls in favor of my legislation."

They won't bother to say the opposite, even if that is true.

Do they care if it's opposite? Yes and no.

Yes, if it were an awful lot of phone calls they would. But no, in general they know that a call is usually as far as a disgruntled citizen will go, so they don't care as much as you'd think.

How do you increase the odds? Let me illustrate with a case in point, a friend of mine, Patti, who contacted me wishing to pressure her Senators and Representative in Arkansas to see to more funding for Head Start - as opposed to the "virtual decrease" that the Bush Administration is playing with it.

(It's virtual because while they can truthfully say the funding is not cut, they are really funding it at the same baseline level, which as they know they are inflating the currency, and as they further know more kids exist now then last year, it works out to less proportionately per kid. Or about 25,000 kids not having this program, nation wide.)

I reviewed the letter that is supposed to encourage people to call their leaders. Nicely enough done. It was written by a Lori Alexander, who can be reached at 479-576-4112. (She wishes to be called about this issue, if you are genuinely interested.) But there were some innocent errors.

She wants everyone to call, fax or email before the first of March. Which is good, for it will be over by then, so anyone concerned should best do something before then. And quickly, for there is only about two weeks left!

She then includes their numbers - their D.C. 202 Area Code numbers!

That is the first mistake. Call their home offices in their home state. Those aren't handled by a nationwide switch board. They're handled by a volunteer, or an employee of the most important office.

Why is the state office the most important? It's the one designed to keep the folks at home happy! So he/she can hobknob in D.C. without being bothered! It's them you need to convince!

Now, realistically, they will hardly care much more then the D.C. switchboard...but they'll care a bit more. I'd say this - 2 calls to their office are worth 3 to the D.C. office. So you get more bang for you buck having your supporters calling them there.

How else can you make more of an impression? Several ways...

1. Have everyone call, even from other states. Sure, they only really care about registered voters in their state, but they are sensitive to public opinion in general, and if they think this is a "hot button issue" they may reflect on things a bit more.

So call regardless as to whether you live there or not. But don't volunteer that you don't. Don't lie, but don't volunteer it.

2. Even though you know you are not going to get to speak with him/her, ask first if you can speak to them! If you don't, they'll think you are a seasoned caller who knows how it works! Let them instead know you as the concerned and trusting soul you are, who actually believes that they are "your servants", hard at work in the office, just waiting to hear from you!

After they tell you he/she is not in, next ASK what he/she plans to do about this Head Start mess. And whether they are going to let Bush "get away" with this!

This will not get you an honest answer by the way. They'll say, "He is very concerned with that", or "He's looking into that." or some such answer that means nothing.

You can repeat the question, but try not to upset the office worker. You do wish her to record your opinion! So repeat it to waste time, and make them more aware of the public's discontent, but don't get all smart or cute with them. And know that no matter how much you feel like you were answered when you hang up...you really weren't answered! But that's just how it works, so don't let it upset you!

3. Formally ask her to please let the great man know your views. (uh, but don't call him the "great man"!) She'll say of course, and put a check mark, "for" or "against" in a logbook or on a computer screen, set up to record who wants what.

The elected official will get the daily totals, or weekly, depending on what the issue is.

4. Senators and Representatives are supposed to be equal, and are supposed to all be called "Congressman". Since Senators are actually more powerful, they prefer to be called Senators, so always refer to them that way. Since Representatives are actually weaker, they prefer to be called Congressman, in the hopes that some might think they are a Senator! So always refer to a Representative as "Congressman".

(That was the second mistake in the letter.)

5. Be polite to the staff worker.

6. But sound peeved, like you are about to run out and start a new pressure group!

7. If you actually really care, and live within 30 miles, drive to the office and say your say in person. Dropping off a letter would be nice, also.

8. 1 handwritten letter equals 10 phone calls, equals 100 emails, equals 1,000 signatures on a petition. Why? Because the first is the hardest for people and takes the most time. The last is the least effort and time. Your leaders are aware of this. So you may call as I said...but a visit with a handwritten letter (legible, please!) is like cloning yourself and your impact ten times!

Worth the trip, letter, or both, if you really believe in the cause.

Oh - and faxes annoy the office to no end. You are wasting their paper on stuff that they don't care about. And a fax counts as above a phone call, but below a letter. Though it takes as much effort for the fax as the letter - and that annoys the staff, too.

(The third and last mistake of the letter was to advise faxing.)

9. There are ways of pressuring officials in general, and stirring up media coverage, and getting those undecided to pick your side. Check out this link to get tips from yesterday's article on this issue:

Tilting At Windmills Made EZ

10. Don't do that "trick" where each member of your family calls up....especially not one right after the other! They do know what number calls into their office, they're the government after all! And having non-voting kids call is pointless. If your kids want to help, organize a "Children's March" on the Senator's office...but that assumes it's known that he opposes.

Now.

Here are the real numbers you need for the particular project under review. It's a real project, and a worthy cause, even for anarchists like myself. Why? Because since they are going to rob me no matter what, I'd as soon my money went to helping kids in Arkansas rather then killing kids in Iraq!

Senator Blanche Lincoln
912 West Fourth Street
Little Rock, Ar 72201
501-375-2993
1-800-352-9364 (toll free)

Senator Mark Pryor
The River Market
500 Clinton Ave
Suite 401
Little Rock, Ar 72201
501-324-6336
1-877-259-9602 (toll free if in Arkansas)

Congressman Vic Snyder
3118 Federal Building, 700 W. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, Ar 72201
501-324-5941

Remember, letters are best...not photocopied, or cut and pasted, but hand written, neatly, simply, no fake attempts at officialness, just your honest thoughts. Then mail it or take it down and drop it off.

In that letter, make sure and thank them for the fine job they are doing, etc. Yes, lie!

And please call Lori Alexander with any more questions on this issue. It's important to be fully informed before writing or calling or writing your Congressman.

Dean West

Tilting At Windmills Made EZ

2005-02-17T01:01:00.000-08:00

As a Voluntarist...what most know as an Anarchist...I am opposed to governments on moral grounds, and believe that problems are best resolved without them.

Voting, working for them, calling upon them, only validate their existence, and give them moral sanction to continue in their existence.

(though grabbing back every tax dollar you can in the signing up for any freebies is fine...assuming you ever paid taxes at all)

That said, we live in a culture so choked with government that the avoidance of them is all but impossible in their ceaseless and tireless efforts to impinge upon every facet of our lives, from registering our births and injecting diseases in us to certifying our deaths and stealing our estates from our children.

Thus there are times when must deal with these force initiators. Not to make the do as we wish...for they'll never voluntarily go away!...but to make them obey their own rules.

So...it is needful to know how to "fight city hall".

Now please. It is highly unethical to me to use these methods to "pass a law", or worse, "pass a law that involves higher taxes for greater largess". Such is nothing but coercion of your neighbors and theft of them.

So if you ever use these for that...you shouldn't, and please don't share with me that you did, or thank me, or anything distressing like that.

I write these out for one highly specific and moral goal...to compel the government to adhere to it's own laws, for the purposes of acquiring that which is your's by moral right, or having them back off of you, or some similarily moral purpose, not involving milking the public or telling them how to live.

Also, if there is a case where you are not advocating an increase in taxes, only opposing taxes being used less in one "good" area, and more in a given "bad" area, that is fine, too. Just be careful, playing with government is not like playing with a gun - it is playing with a gun.

Here goes, these are mainly for bureaucracies...and yes, I've "field tested" them:

1. Know your goal. Is there a good or service you are entitled to being unjustly denied? Is an action being taken against someone that needs to stop? Your goal is then either for them to give you that specific thing, or to stop some specific action.

2. It must be a specific goal: "Stop polluting" is not a goal. It's a dream. "You must stop granting a waiver to FoulCo to dispose of waste mercury in the Wabash River" is a goal. Or maybe your kids in prison, unfairly. Don't shoot for prison reform...shoot for him getting out. Callous? Nope. Realistic. Governments are more willing to grant a special exception - which leaves the principle of their justness in place - then to say, "We were completely wrong and will change entirely"!

3. Remember, "Think globally, act locally"? It's true. Don't try any of these methods at Federal level, these are for local...and with more work, State levels.

Even in the case of a problem with the Federal government, you deal with the local office of it, or state level, to correct things. You have not the funds for a nation wide reform...and if everyone focuses on their little patch...that is nationwide!

4. Make sure you are right...or plausible. There must be a law saying that what you seek to change back, or change to, is requiered. The Constitution? Well...as a last resort, you can sometimes go a little ways with that...not really though. No government agent/bureaucrat is as worried about the constitution, they are only concerned with the laws and regulations. Those are in stone, the constitution is whatever they say it is.

Sad, but true. So find the law.

(yes, the Constitution can sometimes bluff, there are victories to be won with it...when dealing with some agency susceptible to public perception. But with one of the large, uncaring bureacracies? No.)

5. In cases where you are seeking to sue, consult an attorney. Most will see you for free. Now listen, this is important... If they say they'll do it for a percent of the award, then pursue this! For they would not work on this if they didn't think there was a great chance of winning, it's not like they want to work for free!

But...if they say, "I'll do it. I'll need $1,500 up front, and I bill at $100 per hour, $150 in court..." then go home. A professional lawyer has just told you he thinks he won't win! For if he thought he'd win, he'd take the percentage cut. No matter how good his quoted price, don't do it, for he must think he'll lose...but you'll have already paid...

If the attorney takes it on percentage...then just do what he says, not what I or others say. Always do what your attorney says. Even if it sounds stupid. And if you think it's that bad...then get another one, but do not ignore the man paid to know this stuff. It's like ignoring your doctor...and about as life threatening.

6. Paying a lawyer to find a law is okay. Though usually you can get one of them to do it for free. You can even go down to the courthouse and look at the law library. Here's a hoot: Don't worry that the books are out of date, don't worry that whatever you find isn't fully applicable! Find something that seems to say it...(now don't get too silly on this, it must actually seem to say it, or better yet purely say it.)

It may be outdated or overturned, but who will know that? No one at first...

Once you have that citation, you will go far, for no bureaucrat or administrator, etc. actually knows all the laws. But they know they are compelled by them. The ability to cite a specific title or code has gotten me quite high before. You'd be surprised.

Yes, if it goes to the mat, their lawyers will find the case that overturned it, but if you aren't suing, just seeking bureaucratic correction, you can often bluff them into giving in, for they figure, "Well, what's one time, and if we fight, then all will know about this, and it'll be everytime!"

7. Now. Form a group. Though this could be done simultaneously. How do you form a group? Easy as ABC.

A. Advertise that your group is meeting on the 15th at (Hotel Conference room or restauarant with private section you can reserve) You'll have to come up with a name for this "group". Preferably low-key patriotic and descriptive. Troop Support Network...good. Mothers for American Soldiers Wronged by our Government...bad. You want three words. And don't make some kind of overly contrived acronym, it's overdone. Short and professional.

B. Bring your family and friends to the meeting. Hopefully, them and you, will be at least 6 people. Much can be done with six. When others arrive, they'll do so out of curiosity, or because they are kooks who love this kind of thing, or best of all, are in the same situation as you. Don't be surprised if only six show up...for a town of fifty thousand, and with no advertising budget, that'd be great.

(For those in the same boat...make sure it's understood that this is for your case now and then each case as it comes. They may help you then on yours knowing you'll then help on theirs. They probably won't think to start their own group, but if someone suggests that, remind them that there is strenght in numbers and you can get more done together.)

C. Call the press. You will be placing the ad, usually for free, in the paper, so let them know while doing it. Share your story with them if they ask. Don't offer it though, because this will surprise them, and they'll take it more seriously if they have to ask. So you stop by one of their cubicles and say, "Just letting you know that TSN is meeting next week, hope to see you there."

When they ask, tell them a little...but bow out quick and tell them, "Well, I have to get plugging away, I can talk more at the meeting."

Come the meeting, and even actually before the meeting...you are now a group.

You can throw as much bells and whistles on it as you like. Letterhead, cards and such...but those are for longer campaigns, and start to involve some money.

At the meeting itself, introduce yourself, share your story, and don't feel you have to make the TSN about all troops. No, more like, "I formed the TSN because of the injustice done to my daughter by the government. We are working to solve that case..."

This leaves it open that you may well assist other troops later...but also firmly establishes that you aren't fighting for all troops now, you are fighting this specific case. If pressed on this, frankly state that your resources mandate that such injustices be fought one at a time.

What are you asking them for? To write letters to the editor in support of this cause. Perhaps to pass out fliers or pamphlets making the public aware. A picket or two if that need arises. Emphasize that you are really looking for time and effort, not money. Since few were likely to be wishing to give you money anyway, this will relieve them so much that they might donate some time. (keep privately in mind that just them being there and signing your member sheet is a bonus, for your "group" now looks bigger and more real.)

Don't mount an email campaign. Real letters, to press or to representatives get far more attention. Here is the formula for persuading a State Representative: 1 mailed letter equals 10 phone calls or 10 emails which itself equals 100 signatures on a petition. Do the others if you feel like it...but letters count much, much more.

(unless you can truly flood their office with calls, or overload their computers with email, or canvass enough neighborhoods for 10,000 signatures...unlikely. But that said, you could get those signatures, with enough real enthusiastic and patient volunteers. People will sign anything, especially something so non-controversial.)

And by letters, I do not mean photocopied letters that the lazy can sign the bottom of, and you mail for them. No, a letter by them, written by them, mailed...by you! They can bring them to the next meeting. Why? Because if you don't see them, then know that the members didn't get around to writing them.

Tell them that you need to be able to log in each letter, and send them in batches to make an impression. You really just need to make sure that they can't pretend they wrote when they didn't.

At this first meeting, you may apprise them that you are going to be talking to the agency involved tomorrow, and will report back on how it went at the next meeting two weeks from today.

Do not have weekly meetings...it's too much for people. Do not have monthly meetings, to infrequent. Every other Wednesday is best. Wednesday is always the best evening for a meeting. 7pm is the best time.

8. Now armed with the above...to solve a problem that a government agency is giving you...such as the VA for example...go to them first.

Why not? One, they may actually do what they are supposed to do (rotflmao)...and seriously, when they don't, you will at least be able to say you tried. Which is very important. (and maybe they will help, it could happen)

For when you go to the next higher up, the first thing they'll ask is, "What did Administrator Tacksleech say?" and when you say you didn't ask him, they'll say, "Well, he handles this kind of thing."

You want to be able to say, "I spoke with Mr. Tacksleech on the 28th of November, and he said that there wasn't anything to be done. Yet U.S. Title 501 and 503 clearly says..." and then District Coordinator Plushbottom knows he can't just shuffle you out the door.

He'll want to know somethings. What exactly you seek. What was the reason for being denied. Know these things, this isn't the time to stammer or say, "I don't know", for you'll likely never get another appointment with him then...for you clearly aren't serious, aren't prepared...and most of all...aren't a threat.

Getting the first appointment is usually surprisingly easy. The second is harder, for they know you now. So make the first one count. Oh, and don't pull the rookie trick of asking if it's "possible" to speak to the District level guy. Just assume it. Bureaucrats respond well to authority, it's what they're used to. Don't be overbearing, just convey a casual certainty.

"This is Mr. West of the TSN, I'm calling to schedule an appointment with Coordinator Plushbottom." If there is silence, do not fall for it by stammering some reason why. Your time is valuable, she's a receptionist, she can ask..and will ask if you stay silent.

Having been asked, "What is this in regards to?", you answer, "Our group has some concerns about the some aspects of Administrator Tacksleeche's handling of my daughter's case, as regards Title 501 of the Federal code." (Note that it's "our group" not "me, my siblings, and my cats!")

Note...do not say "He broke the law!" or "I think he may have broke the law." You have "concerns". "Concerns" are something they know they can address. Accusations are things that their legal department handles. You do not, NOT, want to get shunted there...really.

For those guys know that even if you have a real law, that they can still bs you for years. And they will. So avoid them. And if you can't...then stop, and get an attorney.

Oh, and if you're asked, "TSN?", then do NOT act like they are fools for not hearing of it, for that's too obvious a trick. Just calmly and naturally answer, "TSN? It's the Troop Support Network" Again, don't explain, you'll look over eager. If asked what that is, tell them simply...but disengenuously, "We're a local support group for vets, and friends and family of vets, who need help getting appropriate services."

Do not accuse them specifically on that, your description should be broad, non-confrontational...but somewhat disconcerting, for who wants such a group to want an appointment with them?

9. So what happens at this level? You've got your goal, your group, you tried talking to the administrator, that failed, you got the appointment with his boss and just laid the case before him, telling him what you seek.

He won't say no. He won't say yes, either, but be assured he won't say no. He'll instead, "look into it". Which is fine. It's the best you could have expected...and just what you needed.

10. Call everyone you know, and get an "extra meeting" scheduled for the next night. You'll want at least 6...but 10 or more is much better. Then call and invite the local press...principally the TV news. Now...don't call all of them. You'll be asked if you did, you'll want to say, "No, not yet. Do you not wish me too?" Of course they don't want you too, they want the exclusive. But let them say it. If they don't ask this, then before hanging up say, "Should I call the other channels, or did you all want first shot at this?" (say "first shot", not "exclusive", "exclusive" sounds pompous and phony, you are going for casual, not eager.)

These people aren't bad, they'll either decide then and there to do it, (or ask to be able to call you back within an hour) and ask you to let them have "first shot", or they'll say, "go ahead"...in which case, sadly, they aren't all that likely to show up. Then call all others, till one wants it, or they've all at least been advised.

(If none want it, call the local newspaper. If that fails, shoot for radio. If that fails...jeez what kind of town do you live in? *sighs* Well, that just means that at the meeting you plan for a picketing.)

So why do you want an "extra meeting" with cameras? So while Coordinator Plushbottom is having dinner the next day, he can see it on the news. And think, "Dammit, this is bigger then I thought, why haven't I heard back from that chairwarmer Tacksleech, yet?"

It also helps make up his mind which way to go, given that our vague laws allow him to go either way he thinks easiest.

If that meeting makes not the news, then the picketing probably will. Do it in front of your District Representative's office. Why? So he can call up Plushbottom and say, "What the hell are these fools doing outside my office?" This helps Plushbottom figure things out also!

Don't picket Plushbottom's office, he's the guy you're trying to persuade!

(picketing should always be peaceful, and have an "angle". Don't walk in circles, your members will bow out, get tired, etc. You can have them all there for probably a few hours tops, or schedule them so some are there all day. If you have not six...you may wish to hold off. Not having a demonstration is better then demonstrating how few your numbers are. You can pick up some protesters at the homeless shelter though, in an emergency...they might even do it for a hoot and a meal. Any pay they want...pay at the end, not the start!)

(As to angles...that's hard to teach. Each situation is different. In general, you want something novel, for the cameras. Novel, not goofy. Oh...and go to the homeless shelter and find a disabled vet, preferably an amputee. Try to do it with some dignity. Explain your situation and frankly tell him that his presence will help. Don't bs this kind of guy, most homeless are smarter and more savvy then you think.)

Oh...and if you do need to contact your State Representative...you can...and with the same methods of getting an appointment with Plushbottom probably (eventually) get one with him...but...

But a method that sometimes works is to KEEP picketing in front of the rep's office, keep asking the press what the rep is doing for vets....keep referencing him all the time...until...lol

His office calls to set up an appointment with the chairperson of TSN! In such cases, it's said that you can "come in" to speak with Representative Porkbarrel on the 7th, he has 15 minutes available.

Say yes. Don't quibble on who goes to who or the time or the date. They phrased it that way to try re-establish their authority, that you are coming to them. Don't think for a second they'll ever go to you, try it, you'll see. To laugh and say, "Feeling the heat is he? Then he can come to our meeting" will only get you an implacable enemy.

And you aren't a tenth big enough to give him that much heat. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson...they don't have that much heat. They could probably trick a rep into a "surprise visit" to a rally they "shamed him" into attending, but to flat out say it? Nope.

Lay your case out to him. He'll "look into it". Meaning calling up Plushbottom and saying, "Why are these fools STILL bothering me?"!

*sighs*

There is so much more. How to handle meetings, the press, the bureaucrats, picketing, pamphleteering, making the press your friend... This is the roughest of outlines. More general guidelines.

It seemed it would be easy for me to write this all out, but for everything I wrote, I kept thinking, "well, there's also this, too." Most of this kind of thing I do on automatic. I am happy to answer anyone's questions on specifics, though. Email me, you'll get a response.

Dean West

P.S. Net Bandits took two of my main nics, so in many groups that read this, I am not there. Email me an invite if you like, I'll be back in with another nic as soon as I can. It's been hectic.

If Jesus was born in America...

2005-02-16T14:52:00.000-08:00

Bethlehem, Judea - DFYS were called in by a concerned citizen who noticed that a family was staying in a barn. Upon arrival, they took into care a minor child, Jesus Nazarene, who had been placed in a feeding trough by his mother, Mary Nazarene. The intervention was not without some incident, as the boy's father, Joseph Nazarene attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several farm workers and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to assist the minor child, but were all restrained by the police.

The INS and DEA is seeking more information about the three foreigners, as they were found without papers, and in possession of gold and drugs.

Meanwhile, the Hotel Manager who owned the barn is being questioned, and faces possible revocation of his licence for the inadequate accomodations. Civil authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved in maintaining livestock in a commercially zoned district.

The location of the minor child will not be released, and the prospect for a quick resolution to this case seem small. Asked about when Jesus would be returned to his parents, a DFYS spokesperson said, "The father is unemployed, the mother underage, and while they claim to be married, Lord knows who authorized that! We are petitioning to have him arrested for statutory rape - I mean, the mother's only 14! Further, the mother has not coped well with the emotional strain, she claims she has never had sex, and that the child is of a god - clearly she has some denial issues."

But it may be more then that. Shortly after Joseph was in fact arrested on molestation charges, local police escorted Mary to the psychiatric wing of Bethlehem General for a 72 hour evaluation. "I don't profess to have the right to tell people what to believe", said the psychiatrist on duty, "but when their beliefs adversely affect the safety and well-being of others, in this case her child, we must consider her a danger to others. The drugs at the scene didn't help her case either, but I'm confidant that with the proper therapy regimen we can get her back on her feet."

The intervention of two Federal Agencies, a State Agency, local law enforcement, and several business regulatory agencies at all levels seems overwhelming for one family of three, but as a spokesperson for the Governor's Office said, "Who knows what was going through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. We seem to have kicked over a stone here, and for the sake of the child and the public, will pursue this one to the end."

*

Judea - A local cult is under suspicion of kidnapping when it was found that a runaway child, Jesus Nazarene, was in fact in their "temple" surrounded by a crowd of older men. While they insist that they were doing nothing wrong, nor holding the 12 year old boy against his will, local agencies are suspicious. "They said the kid was 'teaching' them.", said a State Trooper spokesperson, "But what these middle aged men were learning from this boy is more then I care to dwell on."

This is the second time young Jesus has been the focus of such attention. He had previously been taken from his parents in the Christmas Eve Debacle in which several agencies were involved investigating his parents, their friends, and a local Hotel Owner, for suspicion of a variety of local, state, and federal charges. He was ultimately reunited with his mother when she was released from a local hospital having completed therapy for drugs and co-dependency. His father, Joseph Nazarene, though the mother denies he's the father, received one year for statutory rape, and has since divorced Mary and moved to his hometown, where he is a member of the Carpenter's Union.

*

Judea - Jesus Nazarene is in the news again after a 19 year hiatus. Jesus, now 31, has come under investigation from a variety of agencies for his recent outbreak of bizarre activities. He has been under investigation from the Alcoholic Beverages Commission for the illegal distilling of spirits which he then distributed at a wedding party, with no liquor license. He is under fire from state regulatory agencies and the AMA for practicing medicine without a license.
A local law enforcement agency is also investigatin reports of Jesus creating a new cult, one in which people are encouraged to abandon their wives, husbands, parents, even children. "You must hate your parents if you follow me.", Jesus is reported to have said. He has also been looked at as the source of labor unrest in the area, allegedly telling several fisherman to conduct a 'wildcat strike' and join his cult instead.

Tax and Business agencies are also looking into how a man with no visible means of support has supported catering endeavors of up to 5,000 people, feeding them all, at no charge - and with no license to do so, nor permit for doing so outside.

"What can I say?", said the Governor's spokesperson, "Look at his home environment, his upbringing, and the run in's he's been involved in before. He's a ticking time bomb, and it's amazing we haven't heard more from him till now." He refered to several bizarre incidents in Jesus's childhood involving drug smuggling, statutory rape, abduction by a cult, and regulatory offenses that surrounded Jesus, his parents, their friends, a local businessman, and a local cult.

*

Judea - Revolutionary terrorist, Jesus Nazarene, has been taken into custody, after a tense and armed stand off with his cultic followers. Peter Rock, an aide of this terrorist, was also arrested for cutting off an ear of a Federal Agent. Many law enforcement personnel were hurt, all with damaged ribs, from a weapon of unknown design and location, possibly ultrasonic.

The tip to Jesus's whereabouts came from local man Judas Iscariot, who was given the $300 reward for calling CrimeStopper's toll free hotline.

Jesus Nazarene had entered the city early Thursday, causing widespread riots and unrest, as thousands of anarchic protesters littered the streets with palm leaves to show support. Notwithstanding his appeal to various disaffected elements in society, he and his gang quickly hid themselves in an upper room of a local hotel for a "Last Supper" - clearly expecting a confrontation to come.

A maid interviewed tells horrific tales of this group of terrorists engaging in bizarre rituals, first washing each other's feet in some unknown ritual, then pretending that they were drinking blood and eating raw human flesh.

Later, they went to an isolated area outside of town, where Jesus posted guards, who fortuneately fell asleep several times, allowing law enforcement agencies to get their men in place.

Jesus, who has been reluctant to be photographed, was identified when Mr. Iscariot bravely volunteered to walk right up to him and "kiss him" - a bizarre ritual that would draw little suspicion from the rest of the all male cult.

It was then that violence erupted, when Peter Rock pulled a sword, and cut off the ear of Agent Antonius, who is recovering in a local hospital for injuries less severe then first thought. At the apparent signal of Jesus's hand, some unknown device then shot all the other law enforcement agents, though it was apparently a one shot weapon, for there were no further incidents.

*

Judea - Tried and convicted, terrorist and cultic revolutionary, Jesus Nazarene will be executed today, his last appeals ran out.

It had been speculated that his very open and public trial might result in an acquittal, yet when polled the jury unanimously desired his execution. This in contrast to the almost simultaneous acquittal of local activist Barabas.

The magistrate most directly involved, Senator Pilate, apparently had given Jesus every chance to explain his actions, so that he might be given leniency. An aide to the Senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, reports that Jesus attempted an insanity plea, claiming to be a god, and also was in contempt of court, often throwing the Senator's words back at him, saying repeatedly, "Ye have said so."

In spite of what might be construed as either an insanity defense, or a plea of "Nolo Contendere", Jesus Nazarene was ultimately convicted under the Patriot Act, and the Homeland Security laws, for obstruction of justice, fomenting rebellion, creating labor unrest, inciting to riot, vandalism of a temple, recruitment of a militia, conspiracy to treason, assault on federal agents, and the commission of innumerable regulatory offenses from the illegal serving of alcohol, operating a catering business without a license, practicing medicine without a license, and failure to file tax returns.

*

Judea - At midnight last night, convicted terrorist Jesus Nazarene was executed by the electric chair. His last words, "It is finished", brought to an end an incredible tale of deception, violence, and cultic practices, that stretched all the way back to his birth.

While some followers of this cultic leader are still in custody in Guantanamo Bay holding facility pending further questioning, most are at large, including Peter Rock who may have been in the area at the time, but was unable to be identified in time, in spite of repeated inquiries. They have dispersed, it is suspected, to take up their seditious activities again.

At the request of many, who fear new outbreaks from the executed terrorist's cult, the Homeland Security Department has assigned an Agent to oversee the complete dispersal of all these terrorist cells. Special Agent in Charge Saul Tarsus will head the task force that handles the logistics of this assignment.

"I will see to it that America sleeps safe. I don't care where they go, where they hide, I will see to it that no more trouble comes from them, if I have to walk to Damascus myself!", said Agent Tarsus, refering to the town where it is suspected that some terrorists still reside and plan further terrorist activities.

Dean West

Are Murder and Theft Wrong?

2005-02-15T13:17:00.000-08:00

We do not know that murder and theft is wrong, for we were all taught it inconsistently.

While we are taught in words that we are not to kill and steal, we are all raised to see it happening all the time, and to see it condoned and encouraged, even by those raising us.

Now in spite of that, many of us actually do know that stealing and murder are wrong because of that "spoken education", but many of us actually do steal and murder by proxy. Such as when you go to vote for a new tax, or a master who will wage war, or a lawgiver who will make illegal that which is not immoral.

This is because we have been taught that if you call theft "taxation" then it is okay. That if wrong is in a good cause, then it is okay. That if we don't name bad things...like how not paying taxes will inevitably lead to you being killed...then it doesn't really count as murder, or as bad.

By way of such primitive magical thinking do we generally accept stealing and murder as appropriate - if done in "appropriate" ways.

I, and others, have learned to see through that, thanks to several of history's great thinkers, who have kept alive over the millenia the way of life we used to have before we fell prey to governments and gods in the fourth millenia B.C.

It has not been an easy struggle, to keep alive the knowledge that all stealing and murder is wrong. In fact, it was only with the publication of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, in 1957 that one book brought the whole secret out into the open, written in a way that all could understand, if they wanted to.

And even at that there was still one minor point to clear up, which Morris and Linda Tannehill did in their book called, "The Market for Liberty" in 1970. (In fairness to Rand, the final point had been cleared up implicitly in "Atlas Shrugged", but not explicitly)

35 years marks how short a time it's been since the final piece in that puzzle of why we do bad things was finally put in place.

It is not that our species is that slow. But rather that those who have strived against institutionalized stealing and murder have been fought - and mostly crushed - by those who benefit by it. And they are greater in number. And better organized. And have the bulk of the Public, the Great Mass of Humanity on their side.

The cat has almost escaped the bag before, with the Old Testament Kritarchic Jews being a prime example. They renounced Governments and Organized Religion in the days after the fall of Sumeria. And have been hounded, dispossessed, enslaved, and massacred by all governments and organized religions ever since. For 5,000 years.

Why? Because they have been the only cohesive, organized force against Organized Religion and Governments that the world has ever had. Not all of them believed it, but enough of them did, and even those who didn't, dutifully passed on the information to each new generation.

The governments have always pursued such nomadic peoples, and sought to incorporate or crush them. The Organized Religions have fought to keep the idea of logic and liberty from all men. Any random individual who has tried for freedom from government or god has been ostracized, dispossessed, enslaved, burned at the stake, stoned, or otherwise killed. And many more random freedom loving individuals are quite capable of learning from those many examples, and shutting up from the start - thus living...and dieing...in futile obscurity.

After the attempt of Abraham to get us back on track, efforts were futile till Aristotle tried to come up with a system to allow us to at least learn what would work. He failed in his time. But left behind invaluable information that was so wide spread that despite many efforts by churches and governments, it was never fully lost.

Then the Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) tried to take Jewish Kritarchic teachings, and make them broad enough for all men. It can be inferred that he may have had good intentions in this, but it can also be easily shown that he failed when his Catholic inheritors perverted the message back into a love of an official god and absolute government. And outlawed all reading and learning, and in their absolute control, reigned over a period we call "The Dark Ages".

Modern Church leaders do not teach, and probably do not know, that Genesis was not an "Origin Story", it was really a political essay, that the Jews used to teach their kids that Agricultural City Dwellers (represented by Cain) would kill Freedom Loving Hunter/Gatherer nomads (represented by Abel), and that God was on the side of the nomads. Ditto the Flood. Ditto the Tower of Babel. Ditto Sodom and Gomorrah, where the sin was communism, not homosexuality. The Old Testament even has "God" specifically say that governments are bad, and that they will take your property and children from you, and still the church ignores this.

Mohammed tried, succeeded briefly with the Saracenic Empire, the bright spot of the Dark Ages. Then failed when Organized Religion and Government took over.

The Protestant Reformation pitted two rival power structures - The Catholic Church and The Protestant Church - against each other, and as they were not in absolute charge any more, the Renaissance could be begin in Europe, with writers such as John Locke ("Two Treatises on Government") and John Milton ("Aereoplagia").

We then come to the "Age of Enlightenment" when drawing from geniuses like Aristotle, the Jews of the Old Testament, and John Locke, we saw many men attempt a massive shift back to freedom and from theft and murder.

Our Founding Fathers? No, not really, though they tried some what, in some ways. More men like Adam Smith ("The Wealth of Nations"), or Thomas Paine ("The Age of Reason"). The abortive American experiment in freedom did little more then give some new thinkers a place to think in relative freedom...but not real freedom.

With them and others as examples, there was to be an increased awareness all through the 19th century that men's trades and interactions should be free of stealing and murder (as exemplified by economic authors such as Frederic Bastiat, "Economic Sophisms", "The Law") and that gods should not rule men, nor the priests who presume to speak in the god's name (as exemplified by authors like Huxley and Clemens), and that men could be free in spirit no matter what (as exemplified by Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", Lysander Spooner, "The Constitution of No Authority", and Herbert Spencer, "The Right to Ignore the State").

The 20th century saw a massive shift back, as Organized Religion and Governments attempted to fight back at an increasingly freedom loving populace.

The organizing of labor into a new religion called "communism" with "society" as it's god, and Marx as it's prophet did well to halt the expansion of freedom. It still controls more then one billion people today.

The adoption of communist ideals while keeping words labels of freedom worked well to re-enslave the Western World. Britain committed suicide in the fifties, losing her whole empire, in an experiment best described as "If we call Communism 'Socialism', and do it to ourselves rather then wait to have it done to us, will it be nicer?" It wasn't.

America meanwhile decided that nationalizing all industry would be perfectly fine - if we called it "Progressive taxation" and "Regulation". How having absolute say over all private companies is different then all companies being public, they do not say.

During these reversals in the 20th century, many thinkers, being at the end of the brief age where you could speak and not die, spoke up quite loudly.

Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Clemens again, Isabelle Patterson, Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, the Tannehills, George Reismann, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and many more, all wrote loud and clear about how this was taking us back to the dark ages.

They have all cried out that the same causes must have the same effects...and many warned in the fifties that the day would come when all men would be registered with the state, and need permission to work, travel, own businesses, etc., and that all children would be raised by the State, for the State.

Which is where we come in. We who must have Social Security cards to work, Driver's Licenses to travel, paperwork galore and permits to run a business, and who for the most part graduated from Government Indoctrination Centers that are lousy at teaching reading, great at teaching compliance.

Here we are. The battle is not going well. Nor has it been for several thousand years.

The battle is the same though. Stealing and murder are wrong no matter what, or they are okay sometimes.

Official Gods and Governments, Faith and Force are good things, or they are not.

Logic and Liberty are the ultimate ideals of man, and the natural birthright of all people, or they are not.

What weapons do we have, we the minority on a planet completely owned and controlled by Governments and Organized Religions?

We have no nukes, no missiles, no bombs. Even those of us who might have a gun, are hopelessly outnumbered, should we wish to hold onto our homes or our way of life.

We have only one small weapon, one that has been passed around from the dawn of time, from oral traditions told over camp fires in the ruins of Sumeria, to the catacombs of Rome in pre-Christian Ascendency days, to the huts hidden in the forests of Dark Age Europe, to the back alleys of Leningrad, to the coffee shops of America. From a dozen books written over a dozen centuries, within a flood of thousands of leather bound lies.

The truth.

That's all we have. It will have to be enough.

So. Will you be joining such a fight? Or will you be like the people Winston Churchill spoke of when he said, "Most men stumble over the truth once in their life. But if they are typical, they pick themselves up, brush themselves off, and hurry along their way, undisturbed."?

Dean West

I do not "Support Our Troops"

2005-02-14T03:06:00.000-08:00

I support an individual "troop" that you might show me, some kid who bought the story that our nation was free, and a protecter of freedoms, and that such a good thing had to be defended...I fell for it myself when I enlisted at the age of 17.

So had my dad and uncle, and both my granddad's.

I learned that was not the case. We've all learned much in the past decades.

But I do not "Support Our Troops" - that great and undifferentiated collective where any dark actions of those who torture are then to be hid by the Sweet Saintly Glow of Private Hero feeding the orphan child...an orphan of the man killed as an "insurgent" the day before.

Our military, our government...apparently share my views. Else they wouldn't bribe soldiers to stay on. Yes, the Marine Corp will apparently pay up to $30,000 for a soldier to re-enlist.

We won our nation's relative freedom in the 18th century with shoeless men who received little or no pay, and barely any food they didn't scavenge.

They were led to continue only by their commander reading Thomas Paine's words of encouragement:

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

Such are the words that encourage the type of troops I support to continue in the face of such harsh adversity as to fight impoverished against the mightiest Empire the Earth had seen at that time.

Yet our troops who we are to support unconditionally now are those who fight for the mightiest Empire on Earth, and against a rag tag band of shoeless "insurgents" who receive little or no pay, little food they can't scavenge...

Can we stop the declining re-enlistments by having their commanders read Thomas Paine to "our troops"?

Or must they be paid $30,000?

I'm sorry, I seem to have misplaced my dictionary...could someone please tell me how to spell, "Mersenairy"?

Dean West

P.S. My son was over there in the Army, and had much to tell me, and more to endure. He escaped with his life...and more importantly, his soul. Many haven't. So I am in no way calling any one's brave but misguided child a mercenary. You may have one who is a mercenary, as I might have had one who was. I was fortunate, I hope you are too.

Unsung Heroes

2005-02-13T14:35:00.000-08:00

Store clerks have a dangerous job.

When I worked at a liquor store on the bad side of Fairbanks, in Alaska, I had a bat, a can of bear mace, and my own .357 under the register. The manager provided the bat and mace, but greatly encouraged the clerks to bring their own gun.

Though I would only have regular ammo in it, so it would not go through the attacker and into a customer. Safety first. I had to chew out a new clerk who thought he was Rambo with some ammo that would have taken out an attacker and any customers behind! He didn't last long, he was gone as soon as the manager heard. I never actually had to use my gun, only grab it once and let it be seen to keep from being attacked.

On other occassions I had to slam the bat down on the counter to get people's attention and let them know to be civil. Once I knocked over my own display of potato chips with the bat - just to scare a guy into leaving, by making him think I was the bigger nut. (The bear mace had been emptied the night before)

Twice I had to spray a man with the bear mace - then called the police and told them to check the ER for that is sure enough where the first one went. The second one had more pain endurance, and must have hid out at home for a month (there's a dye in it that makes you orangish yellow!)

The biggest problem was shoplifting, usually by the Native Alaskans, though some college kids from the lower 48 would do so also.

Funny, when the Native Corps sent the checks out at the beginning of each month, the Natives would come in and by the cheapest whiskey we had, so their money would go furthest. Monarch Canadian, 750ml, $7.99, $8.38 with tax. Must have rang up 10,000 of those things. Anyway, when their money ran out - by the fourth or fifth of the month - then it was time for them to shoplift.

Yet, just because they mostly didn't mean any real harm, they'd always try to shoplift Monarch Canadian, rather then some of the fancier and more expensive brands!

Of course, they didn't all try and steal. The women would offer sexual favors, once a very large, but short, Native woman lifted up her shirt, then lifted up her breasts and "sat" them down on my counter!

Another stood in front of the counter back a few feet and lifted up her dress. I wish she'd had panties on, sadly, she did not. "You want some?"..."No, ma'am, I'm sorry, I'm not allowed."

In such cases, most would actually be willing to have sex - but some times they'd be distracting you so that while you politely explained that you couldn't do that, their brother or cousin would be shoplifting. Sometimes you'd have to be brusque with them, which is never good, for most times they really didn't mean any harm, and it hurts them to be turned down out of hand, it's nicer to pretend you'd love to but aren't allowed. That and you don't want to hear from their family for the next few months about how rude you were to reject her.

Leaving your post behind the counter was always risky, but you had to go front the bottles - this means making sure that if someone bought a bottle of whiskey, move the one behind it to the front of the shelf, that way you can always just look out and see what is missing. But when you go out there, you have to watch out, for some of the Native women will grab your crotch if you aren't careful. I am saddened by the sure knowledge that obviously all this sex stuff has worked with some clerks, or they'd not ever try it.

And the men may get frisky and violent when you aren't behind the counter. Best to have very few people around when you front the product. And do it fast. And as I learned later, have the gun with you.

In the best cases, they'd bring in Native Art. Things made out of whalebone and such, that only Natives are allowed to hunt. The standing order from the manager was to give any one a bottle of the Monarch Canadian for any Native Art, and the manager would come in and pay $8.38 for it later!

(Assuming that the clerk just didn't do that himself, which was allowed!)

Other times, they'd go shoplift steaks from the grocery store, then offer it for a bottle. I ate well that winter, for me paying $8.38 for 10 big prime cuts of steak was a good deal for me! And who knows, maybe they really didn't shoplift it.

They'd also bring in bear meat, and salmon jerky and caribou meat. Did I mention that I really ate well that winter? So did my roommate, and all our friends!

They used to bring in cigarettes to, the untaxed kind. They'd sell them to me at $10 a carton, and I could turn around and sell each pack for $3.50, or $25 profit per carton.

Of course, not many of the store's cigarettes then got sold, but so long as the manager was cut in, it was cool. And the owner knew it went on, it's just that he had a real pragmatic policy.

Which was this: He knew he couldn't afford to pay for the full time security that place needed, so he would hire guys like me who worked our main jobs as armed security - I was an armed guard by day in charge of money shipments and ATM stocking.

That way he could pay very little, we'd already have our own vests and gun, and he'd let us "supplement" our pay in such cigarette deals because it was no out of pocket loss to him. He didn't make money on the ciggs, just the booze - and my did he make a lot of money on booze!

And given how often Natives might bring in food, ciggs, art, gold, or electronics, the store clerks - at least those smart enough not to fall for the tricks - would make out well, too. Some of us had quite the informal pawn shop going on, where'd we'd take jewelry and electronics for a given amount of booze, then go to the real pawn shop and cash it in the next day.

No, I wasn't exploiting them, the Pawn Shops aren't allowed to deal with drunk people, so they needed a clerk to sympathize and do it for them. Nor are the pawn shops open during the evening, and when people need booze, they need it now.

God, whenever it was the time of year when all the clocks were fell back one hour...I saw this on my day off, it was 7:15 am and the store not due to open till 8:00. Yet the daylight savings time hadn't sank into the Native regulars...and there were two dozen of them standing and swaying in the parking lot like a "Dawn of the Dead" movie. They couldn't understand why the doors wouldn't open. Took me ten minutes to explain to those there, and all they really understood was the part where I told them that it would be opening soon. Then I hung around to keep them from getting too distressed till the manager showed up.

The main problem in hiring there, before they got smart and hired armed guards who wanted to moonlight, was that the typical new hire would either keep everyone from stealing, then steal for himself - or would not steal, but would let everyone else do so for being too timid to stop them!

"He was big", was what one of them said when the boss came in and asked what happened to the $150 bottle of special brandy that had been ordered! It turned out that the "shoplifter" hadn't even had a knife, just picked it up and walked out! They fired him. Most got fired the first day, or quit from the pressure the first day.

Some customers were "dashers". Where instead of hiding the alcohol to be stolen, they'd pick it up, walk to the counter - then bolt out the door. You had to be careful and aware. If there was no one else in the store - or if you were sure of those who were - you could chase. But even then, be careful of who's outside, and take the gun.

Otherwise though, if you chase, you might come back 30 seconds later to a completely stripped store! I only had one opportunity to chase, and surprised the kids waiting in the car...they got away, but I got their plate. That was an expensive bottle of whiskey for them!

We had great freedom to handle things. And total right to refuse service, and to take a customer's refusal to leave as an assault on us. Too much happens in Alaskan liquor stores and bars to not let it be that way. And we wore necklaces with alarm buttons on them, and had another alarm on the floor by our feet, one in the back, and one in the cash register where you only had to remove a dollar bill and it would silently call the police - who always responded fast.

One time some new to Alaska college kid on a crowded night pulled that trick where you put one bottle in your inner jacket pocket, then bring up two more bottles to the counter to legitimately buy. That always throws the dumb or novice clerk, they figure that they couldn't be a shoplifter if they're buying!

They ALL can be shoplifters!

This guy was watching me - too much so. I'm not one of the clerks to let them know I'm suspicious though, I'm not interested in detering - for they'll just try something else next time. I'm interested in catching...and punishing. Then they'll warn their friends.

So I pretend to not be paying attention, and sure enough, some Jose goes in his inner jacket pocket. (thick coats in Alaska, so obviously a good hiding place).

He comes up, and I'm ready to jump over the counter if he makes a dash, but instead he picks up a couple of bottles of cheap vodka, about $16.76 worth (2 @ 7.99 plus tax). And gets in line.

When it's his turn, I ring up the two bottles, but don't total out, just tell them the total. The moron hands me a $100 bill! So I then add on to the register the $23.99 bottle of Jose Cuervo! Then instead of entering into the register that he gave me $100, I enter into the register that he gave me the exact amount. Then I put the $100 bill in the register, then I took out the change he would have got for giving me $100, and put that money in my pocket!

(Fifty plus dollars)

Now the store has been paid completely for all the alcohol he has. And he has the alcohol. But guess what? He was furious! First he tried to play it like asking what the extra charge was, and I leaned over the counter and punched his coat where the bottle was. *thunk* lol

So he gets this defiant look on his face and says, "Fine, so give me my change". I told him, "I get paid to sell liquor, catching shoplifters is an extra charge - you've paid it now." He started to argue and I grabbed the can of mace and said, "Get out, if you want to go to the police, do so, everything is videotaped here, and you'll be the one in trouble, not me!"

True enough. The policeman who stopped by later on his rounds thought it was funny, and no, the guy hadn't "reported" me! So he wasn't completely stupid, for the FPD would have had a field day with him!

Ever notice how resentful thieves get when you rob them back?

Had a business man up from Seattle one time, apparently unaware of how Alaska is. And he didn't want to wait in line for he "just" had a question. I hate people who say "just" like it makes it okay. I told him politely to wait his turn. Twice! Then he wants my name and my boss's name! lol

I told him to fuck off, and that if he wasn't out of the store right now he'd get a face full of mace. The others scattering to the back of the store is what convinced him. I heard later that he called the owner to complain, and the owner had to explain to him that you can't distract a liquor store clerk on a busy Friday night, for there's too much of a chance of us being set up. True, of course, which I'd have explained if I'd had the time!

An overreaction on my part?

A week before that, I had a 6'6'' man come in wearing a black trench coat, greasy and dirty hair, red eyes, and the unmistakable jitters of a man on meth - but he wasn't speaking. I was scared. He kept looking right at me as he approached the counter, never a good sign, for most people won't keep looking at me when I stare at them.

Worse, he was approaching the counter, looking at me, but I was not safe behind the counter, I was stocking - without my gun. I've made a rule never to let fear of embarrassment get me killed though, so I bolted and ran to the counter. It surprised him and he was a second late getting there, my hand was on the gun under the register while hitting his hand that had been going for the mace - which he obviously knew from the start was there. He then backed away and gave this weird grin while still saying nothing.

He started to move his hand into his jacket like he was going to draw (he must not of known we had guns), and I yelled, "Freeze, freeze!" (silly, but all that TV gets in your head, and what are you supposed to say, "Stop, please"?) And pulled the gun out just as he stopped and held his hands half way out, still grinning. I knew I was supposed to kill him, but there was nothing in his hands.

But I knew I couldn't keep him there without killing him, so I yelled, "Go, Go!" (yeah, it's hard to come up with the great lines sometimes) then called the police with his description. Had I not been willing to "run" to the counter, I'd have died that night. I know this. The manager said I should have killed him when I legally could have, and saved the next clerk's life. She was right, for obviously you are never to draw a gun without killing someone, guns aren't for bluffing. Yet when he held his hands out, I had to assume that he was unarmed or surrendering....I still wrestle with that one.

As my friend pointed out, who was to think that a person would act like they were going for a gun then stop half way? The rules can never cover everything. As it happened, he did have a gun, as we found out a long time later when a grocery store guard busted him for shoplifting. We'd re-used the tape by then though, so we couldn't get him for trying any thing with me.

Ahh, and then the perverts. We had the only porn mags and vids in town, the next nearest was out by the North Pole village, 20 minutes east through the ice fog in a typical 6 month winter.

We had a strict, "This is not a library" policy. And had extra cameras and mirrors in that corner to keep people from putting mags down their pants or up their shirts. And we had no public restrooms either, and nothing weirds me out more then some twitchy guy asking me that while holding the mags in his hand. I did have to smile in rueful amusement at the look on a UAF professor's face when he came to the counter with "Barely Legal" and "Legal and Tender" - he didn't expect to see a student of his at the counter in a store like ours!

The videos were actually kept behind the counter, only the boxes on display. My friend and I (a fellow clerk and armed guard who I roommated with) used to put twenty five cent Disney movies we got from garage sales in the display boxes, with the label on the video peeled off, so that if someone did manage to shoplift one, they'd get a bad surprise later that night!

We also did that with the Crown Royale. Pour mop water in an empty bottle of Crown, and put that in the bag and box, and only replace it when they brought it over to be rung up. Once someone did shoplift some. I hope he enjoyed it! (yes, we get bored after the third month of the endless night...)

Carding the underage. Good god what a chore. I'm an anarchist, but when the penalty for selling to someone under 21 is a $5,000 fine for the store and the clerk, then damn straight I card. I carded anyone under 40, long before those stupid signs went up about it a few years later.

The military boys were the funniest - and the rudest. I speak as a vet here, we had more courtesy then these ones did, I think it's because they still tend to send the "dregs" to Alaska, like it's a hardship instead of an adventure.

One of them was asked for ID and held his wallet up like he's a cop, with the ID behind plastic. Having checked a few thousand of them when I was a cop in the Air Force, I made him take it out and give it to me.

Sure enough, underage. I gave him my standard lecture on how it's not very nice to put my job at risk just for his party, and why couldn't he have his sergeant buy for him like I used to. If they agree and are sorry, then I give them their ID back and tell them to send their sergeant over to buy, and I'll give him a special deal for his trouble (that's good for business).

This one was one of the assholes though, so his card I kept, in the drawer with the other mean people's cards. lol...boy was he frightened. You really have to have those cards in the military. I told him it was okay, he could have his First Shirt come pick it up any time!

One hour later, the kid's immediate sergeant is at my counter, making a real plea - which I interupted, I thought it was enough the buck sergeant was willing to help out his soldier. So I gave him the card and wished him well. Saved both their butts, for Fort Wainwright was cracking down big on underage drinking then, and if I'd actually made the First Shirt come in it would have been big trouble for both.

Civilians who were underage had their cards kept no matter what so as to give them an informal fine - for they'd obviously have to go down to the DMV to pay $20 for another, not to mention how long that takes...

Some cards were fake, others real, with just the bluff being run. Only military guys got half a chance at getting their IDs back. Just to help keep our second largest customer base happy - Native Alaskans still being the first largest.

Had a lady try to give me a Japanese Driver's License as ID. I told her no. She said she was just in from Japan - and I'm looking at a white, blue eyed, blond who looks like she's 18 and getting ready to coast through life on batting her eyelashes and wiggling her ass. She tells me her dad was in the military over there, good enough, she's a typical Air Force brat then, Eielson AFB was only 45 minutes away.

I told her her passport was valid proof, so she should let me see that. She said she didn't have one - yeah, right, at least none with the right age! No sale then, and that really shocked her, as she'd been flirting away. She drove off in a huff. And I got on the phone and called the liquor store two blocks away, for her last words were that she'd find a nicer person to sell it. She even called me an "asshole", go figure!

Sure enough, while explaining to that clerk friend of mine, I'm told, "Yep, she just walked in."!

And tried the same trick. My friend told her, "It's for you" and handed this woman the phone. I said, "Had you not called me an asshole, I might not have called up all the other liquor stores and warned them!" (a lie, I had only called the one, and would have warned my friend regardless as to what I'd been called!)

I don't think she liked me very much.....

But clerks have to be careful these days and stick together. The ABC (Alcohol Beverage Commission) really will fine the clerk $5,000, that's what these people don't realize. And they always send ringers around to test us, so they have an excuse for an under the table pay off, or straight out fine.

The reason I hadn't called all the liquor stores in Fairbanks is because I couldn't! Hell, the owner of the store I worked at owned three other stores - just on that street! There are inumerable liquor stores there, our's just had the distinction of being in the crappiest part of town, and selling the only porn for miles!

Anyway, that's not even the half of how things were at that liquor store! Never a dull moment, that's for sure! Definitely had to stay alert! Hell, the owner let us serve free hotdogs and such to our friends - just so they would come by and chat with us while we worked - and to help keep an eye on things.

What's it all mean? I guess it means no matter who you are, or where you work, the job is what you make of it. Any job, no matter how lowly, can be done well, and can lend credit to you and your company. My friend, the manager, and me, were the only ones who worked at that store for that whole winter (six months). The owner said they were the most productive six months he'd ever had - and even offered us $12.50 an hour to stay, in a town where armed guards were making $10.50, and most clerks only $7.50. (We'd been getting $10 already)

But the job was too dangerous, and no one's luck lasts forever. We each quit and focused on shipping gold and money for the banks. Safer.

Keep that in mind next time you hear some silly eulogy about some policeman "putting his life on the line", or who "lost his life in service to America". Many clerks you see are also putting their lives on the line. And when they're killed, it is also in service to America.

For it sure isn't foreigners they're selling to, it's we the people who expect these minimal wage clerks to be accountants, security, lawmen, ID checkers, stockers, cleaners, lawyers, inventoriers, pawn brokers and public relations specialists all in one - and by themselves - just so we can save a few bucks on a two for one special. Oh, yeah, in that list, I forgot that the clerks actually find time to sell the stuff, too!

Not all clerks work in Fairbanks - no, some work in Compton or the south side of Chicago! And even in rural Illinois there's been clerks killed for the sixty bucks in their till, so it's not just a matter of me working in Fairbanks, or someone else working in a bad neighborhood. Any clerk at any store is putting his life on the line daily - and unlike me when I was in Fairbanks, and unlike the cops on duty, they are NOT allowed guns!

That is scary, and that is wrong, yet still these clerks see to it that we have our booze, our chips, our gas, our beanie weanies at any hour of the night. In a nation that counts simply surviving a bad childhood as "being a hero", I thought I'd go ahead and apply that label with more justice to the clerks of America.

Dean West

Viet raq?

2005-02-12T13:04:00.000-08:00

I say that we should examine the mistakes made in Vietnam...so as to better assess whether or not we are going to...or already are...making the same mistakes or not in Iraq.

My thoughts? Of all the mistakes we made in Vietnam, these stood out:

1. No matter how loudly we proclaimed it, no matter how much money and aid sent...we did NOT have the hearts and minds of the local population.

2. We ignored troop morale problems that were rampant. And the atrocities committed by those troops whose minds and souls shattered under unendurable stress.

3. Our goals were fuzzily defined as, "Freedom...except no elections where commies win", and we could never really succeed because point one...insured that there'd alway be another insurgency to put down.

Other mistakes involved lack of proper materials and supplies for our troops, inadequate medical care for the ones returning, leaders who cared more for "some good victory" footage at certain times, rather then waging the war in a more tactically sound manner, supporting obvious puppet administrations, shoveling the occupied nation's resources out in shady corporate deals...

Sadly...the three main mistakes seem to be being made now, in Iraq. Sadly, all the "little" ones seem to be being duplicated.

As to the desert versus jungle issue...which some people seem to think is in our favor...

Well. Militarily speaking, there is obvious advantage to the abundance of cover and concealment to be found in a jungle or forest as opposed to desert or tundra.

However...the advantages derived by the use of such cover and concealment are not decisive factors in what is called a "guerrilla war", or a "war of attrition". For make no mistake, that is what the Iraqis are doing, is waging a "war of attrition".

Keep in mind that one side declaring the war "over", that it's "mission accomplished" does not make it true. The British could have easily declared the war over at any time, while still "putting down bands of local insurgents", led by the terrorist hater, "Washington".

The Iraqis never surrendered...and no Governor General of Massachussettes appointed by King George or Iraqi Minister appointed by President George has the power to speak for the whole of the people.

Nor any leader appointed by a committee of men appointed by a parliament that was voted on anonymously by Iraqis who were U.S. citizens, voting in the U.S., and all overseen by the U.S. - good God, are we mad that we think they'd fall for that? Would you?

The people there...not all, but many...are still fighting the war. Perhaps as few as one third of the Iraqis are resisting. The American colonists only had one third of the population resisting Britain, too.

In waging this war of attrition, they do not need jungle. The Afghanis certainly kicked the Soviets around enough years to prove this. The Iraqis are no less familiar with the desert then the Afghanis were.

Insurgents don't rely on jungle or desert camoflage uniforms. They rely on blending in with the local population...just like the Viet Cong did. The U.S. Troops march through the Vietnamese village...or Iraqi village...and see only the smiling and waving natives. After they pass through, the weapons are uncached, and the U.S. Troops shot from behind.

Then the insurgents run off, and by the time the U.S. Troops can recover and get back to the village...the insurgents are gone, and it's only innocent lives being blown to bits by our troops in retaliation.

Thus did we lose men then. Thus were we forced into endless atrocities then.

Thus do we lose men now. Thus are forced into endless atrocities now.

How to end it?

Well...there were two other mistakes we made in Vietnam...one we've already committed...one we still could avoid.

1. We never should have gone to Vietnam. And we've made the same mistake now, for we never should have gone to Iraq.

Yet what is done, is done. So what is the second biggest mistake made in Vietnam, the one that we can still correct in this Iraq mess?

2. We waited until 50,000 teenagers were killed, and an entire generation ravaged in body, mind and soul....before finally realizing that no empire has ever crushed a native backed resistance force. Even now the British haven't crushed the Irish in FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of trying.

We are "only" at 1,500 teenage deaths...we could stop now. We could refuse to make the mistake of giving in to stubborn pride. I'd accept shame at a "lose" over our boys being killed for Halliburton any day of the week.

What do you think?

Dean West

Oppose the Draft

2005-02-11T00:27:00.000-08:00

1. It is a violation of the 13th amendment which forbids involuntary servitude (slavery). If a man has not the right to say what his body may be used for - who does?

2. If there is anything more communistic then stating to a person that he must go kill and die for "the good of the whole", I don't know what that is. Conservatives who scream at the thought of the government taking a single penny against their will, should not endorse the draft which that takes the whole of a man's life against his will.

At the same time, if there is anything more Patriarchal then dictating to a person what fight is worth his life, I know not what it is. Liberals who moan at the thought of not being able to choose what herbs they smoke, should not endorse a draft that removes all choice but that of "kill or be killed".

3. Think about how foolish it is to draft anyone in this country of white/black separatists, eco-avengers, religious militants, PETA activists, and a thousand other groups who would be only too happy to guard a multi-billion dollar machine that they can sabotage in the name of Allah, Jesus, Mother Earth, the Aryan Race or Bambi. Does anyone really want an anti-nuke punker to guard NORAD?

4. How fair will a draft be? Will both sexes be drafted this time? Or will we use affirmative action and draft women only? Will the upper class kids escape service again? Or can we catch them by passing an amendment forbidding non-servers from owning property or running for office?

How about drafting the 30 to 50 year olds? They seem to be the ones most in favor of a draft. It might be said that they have families, homes and careers - but that just means they have more worth fighting for. And no can claim that your average 30 to 50 year old can't pull a trigger or or march.

And what of the homosexuals? If they tell when not asked, will they be excused? And if so will mothers enroll their teens in Gay Pride groups to save their lives?

5. What of Conscientous Objectors? Will they be made to serve in a non-military capacity? If no, there'll be a lot of men of conscience arise. If yes, then how does that affect those organizations already providing such services - construction unions and private charities to name just two? Obviously they can't compete with slave labor.

So the price of making some people work against their will is that others will be forced out of work against their will!

6. How can we need the draft when our military still discriminates against half the population? I refer to women, still denied combat positions, still treated as second class citizens. This may account for why they are 50% of the populace but only 15% of the armed forces. Were they treated equally, maybe more would volunteer.

7. What of the discrimination against 10% of the population - the homosexuals? The "don't ask, don't tell" is still discriminatory, and it still makes them second class soldiers on perpetual probation. Any who doubt this may substitute the word "Christian" for "Homosexual" and see if the policy seems as fair.

I personally know of a woman who wants to join the Army but who refuses to hide her preferences with as much integrity as the person who refuses to renounce Christ. Disagree with her lifestyle if you must, but forcing others to join, while she is denied, is crazy. Who's unwilling, gawky teen will get to die, while a mature, competent and motivated woman is told she can't join unless she keeps her mouth shut?

8. What of the military's current age discrimination? Many men over 25 would be only too happy to rejoin, or even enlist for the first time, for a variety of reasons - especially given how the economy is. They would be bringing years of skills and maturity with them. They are denied.

Yet what can an 18 year old mechanic, food preparer, or med tech do that a 40 year old can't? What additional percentage of the population does this represent that is barred from a military that would claim a shortage enough to reinstate a draft?

What if we include men over 50 as well? Colin Powell still seems fit and competent! So you can serve if you started young, but not if you just joined? Uh huh.

9. What of the disabled discriminated against? Seriously. It's always seemed hypocritical for our government to force businesses to spend billions accomadating the handicapped, but exempting themselves. There is no reason why a deaf person can't cook, and a wheel chair bound person can't type memos. With modern technology, a blind person could even guard an electronically alarmed perimeter. This would free the able bodied cook, secretary and gate guard to go out and soldier.

Even some 60 and 70 year old retirees could help in such jobs - and some would be glad to do so at no pay, just to feel usefull. Is that crazy? Out in the field, would you want a meal cooked by "good ol' granpa" who wants to help, or some disturbed kid who thinks you're all evil agents of the Zionist Occupied Government?

10. Given that in all of the above, we've identified over 75% of the total population denied the opportunity to voluntarily participate (and not for reasons of intelligence or ability), talk of needing the draft is a joke. This also overlooks the side issue that in an increasingly technologically dependent military, you cannot rely on teenage malcontents.

Maybe you can force a man to dig a trench or march a mile. But can you force a man to think? And trust him with a $500,000,000 Stealth Bomber?

From all of that, the picture is clear.

Any need for a draft is a result of the military's discrimination based upon sex, sexual preference, age and disability - things that would earn a private corporation lawsuits and bankruptcy, not the legal right to engage in slave labor.

The non-military service draft would mean a rise in unemployment. The military shortages are in the more skilled disciplines, and no amount of force can make a man think. Attempts to force people to serve often result in sabotage. And in all cases, conscription equals slavery, and it violates the integrity of our Constitution, our lives, and the very freedom that the draft is supposedly needed to defend.

And what is it for? Uh, if we didn't capture and enslave the kids, then we might be taken over by a tyrant who would capture and enslave our kids? Hmmm....maybe the tyrant would - so we raise a 50% chance to 100% by doing it to ourselves first?

The draft is not just an idea who's time has come. It's an idea who's time has come and gone, with other ideas like peasants being attached to the land, a woman's place being in the home, blacks being born to serve whites, and every other idea that one person has, and another person has to do.

Freedom cannot be purchased or preserved by the enslavement and sacrifice of the few. George Washington commanded an all-volunteer army. His cause was good enough to attract enough men to win. I doubt he could have led them to Iraq though. That's why from Korea to Kosovo, Saigon to Somalia, those who profit by getting us into "foreign entanglements" have advocated the draft to make up the losses of their insanely incompetent management of these immoral incursions.

Volunteer armies can gain freedom and keep it - our history has proven this. But for truly disastrous military adventures and unjust wars of conquest and control, ultimately only the draft will do. True, the draft has been involved in what we regard as "moral wars". But that bad means were used for good ends, does not justify the use of those means - or prove that they were even necessary.

My suggestion for any who advocate the draft - go serve! If the military won't take you, fly to Israel, and drive to Iraq and pry a gun out of a dead boy's hands and soldier! Or join the Peace Corp. Or the Red Cross. Overseas, of course. Don't like the danger or the pay or locale? Then shut up, and leave our youth alone to make their own choices.

The tree of liberty that Jefferson spoke of was said to need the blood of patriots - not slaves.

Dean West

Rainbow's Coalition

2005-02-10T04:18:00.000-08:00

This blog article has been removed due to a resolution of the difficulties that prompted it.

Dean West

Posting Help To Others

2005-02-09T01:15:00.000-08:00

"If a person does his best to try & help people & he is continualy ridiculed & no one understands him how can he find happiness?" - Jetpowder4, a nic who asked me this at "Debate, Critical Thinking and Philosophy" an MSN Philosophy Community. He was refering to some of his posts and ideas not being accepted as well as he might have liked.

My answer...

By not making his happiness depend on what others think. By recognizing that some people are already happy, and do not need another to "try & help". By understanding that when one offers unasked for help, they do run the risk of being ridiculed, especially if the person disagrees with the nature of the help, or it's motivation even.

You see, anyone who offers help is presuming, even me. He is presuming to know more, have better understanding, even in a way to be a better person, then the person he offers to help.

When the help is so obviously needed that even the person in trouble knows it, asks, or both, then an offer of help is fine. But while offering money to a homeless man will get you gratitude, knocking on a man's door and asking if you can help pay his bills will only get you anger.

In the realm of assisting men to understand things better, to have an orientation that you find more appropriate, it is well to remember that they may already have some thoughts on the matter, that they might even be content with things as they are.

The best you can do by way of "helping" is then to take the long view. You may post some examples of your ideas, so that such can be read, thought about, and debated. But if you do this, you must expect that others, no matter how much they may or may not like it, will have questions, doubts, concerns about what you post, no matter the subject.

Why?

They want to see if you can back it. No one takes a person's bare word for things, if they are to change their outlook, they will want to test the new outlook first. And what better way can they do this then to quiz, sharply question, or even post their own contradictory (but not necessarily wrong) beliefs up in rebuttal?

At this point, you must either answer all those questions - if you really wish to help - or retire from the field, unable to help. Or...you might find that what they say makes sense, then you, the helper, has himself been helped. This has happened to me before.

Another way to convince of your ideas is to have your outlook so internalized, so automatized that on any issue, large or small, you have opportunity to comment on it with your own unique perspective on it. Note the number of posts on topical issues that are Libertarian, Objectivist, Environmentalist, Socialist oriented, this is only those people trying to get their own ideas reviewed, their own seeds planted, by and in the minds of others.

Always stand ready to be questioned. To ever fail to answer a question, or to answer it improperly, can destroy months of work when you seek to help others learn. Nothing will undercut your position more then to not answer an honest inquiry. Or even a dishonest inquiry.

Why?

Because while the person who asks you the question about your beliefs may be dishonest or needling you, there is another person who is just silently reading the exchange. He is thinking you might be right, but he is not sure. He sees the question...he does not see your answer.

A man you do not know, and never will now, has just dismissed you, when had you answered, he might have been a friend, a supporter, a co-worker in your quest to spread your beliefs. Never forget the audience, never, no matter how bad the person who questions you might be.

Dean West

W's Good Points

2005-02-08T03:18:00.000-08:00

1. He knows what he is. This is invaluable, for it allows him to leave the mundane running of things to those who can actually think, leaving him free to join kids in story time, vacation, chuckle, and spin out homey wisdom in his own endearingly, stumblingly illiterate manner.

2. He loves and honors his daddy. This is very thoughtful and rare nowadays, but you can see how he leaves his daddy's friends in charge of everything, out of respect for his daddy's wisdom.

3. He believes in the efficiency of our corporate leadership. This is good for we can benefit by high-powered executives of large industrial concerns managing our nation, our wars and our lives in a far more cost effective fashion then if it were left to us. Perhaps one example of this will suffice...

3A. An average teenage enlistee in the armed forces is from an economically disadvantaged area, due to Bush's administrative downsizings of our nation. So such a recruit could not be expected to earn more then $20,000 a year, with a work life of approximately 40 years, for a total productive output of $800,000. (with only 45% of that being taken in taxes and such, as they are so poor.)

Now the wise and benevolent corporate leaders, such as Cheney, that Bush surrounds himself with have made a remarkable trade in this current war we are in. At a cost of only 1,000 or so of these relatively worthless lifes, they have in effect invested $800,000,000 (eight hundred million dollars).

Yet in the oil contracts they have, the tax dollars received for this, the deals, the scams, the skim offs, the out and out frauds, the contract awards, the total control of the Iraqi economy and all the millions of laborers there now under their control, they've easily got a few hundred billion dollars out of this so far...with no end in sight!

Assuming they will get at least 8 billion dollars out of this (safe enough as they already have), this is an investment return of ten dollars for every teen life dollar invested!

When we consider too that these teens were usually darker then most...well, that's quite a feat! The dream of ages completed, not simply lead into gold, but valueless lifes turned into corporate profits! Yay, Bush!

4. He knows better then to let technicalities stand in the way of our safety. You've seen it before in history, one of our leaders tries to help us, but there's always these pedantic, scholarly high-brows whining about Constitution this, or Bill of Rights that. Hum. So tedious.

Bush left this nonsense to daddy's friends in the Homeland Security Department, to clear this ivory tower nonsense up so that he could protect us thoroughly. Very thoroughly. These friends don't let minor additions to some ancient document stand in the way of what is needed to keep America strong. If they need to search a person's house, then they need to do that NOW, not a whole 20 minutes later when a warrant might be issued!

Fourth Amendment? Fourth Amendment? Oh, please! How important could it be if it was way down fourth on the list, and jeez, it was just an 'amendment' after all, how valuable could it have been? Not like it was in the main part, so it couldn't have meant much.

So Bush keeps us safe, and the long hair scholars can go fly a kite! Buncha hoighty toighty intelleksheeulls...probably queer anyway.

5. He does God's Will. And in this Godless age, these end times, that is very important. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Not on W's watch! All this man with man, women being roommates, women with jobs...oh, nevermind that last one yet...

But anyway, he holds the line against such vile, lustful creatures, and leaves sex the way God intended it - One Man, One Woman, only in Christian Marriage, Missionary Position, Lights Out, and Only When The Woman Is Impregnable.

And he loves All Babies, born and unborn, unless they are black, and even then...they can join our Military. (See point 3)

6. He's loyal to his friends. So when his family's friend Osama Bin Laden blew up the World Trade Center, he flew all of Bin Laden's family home to safety so those pesky cops couldn't interview them. Then when our military almost found him in Afghanistan, he pulled them back to attack Iraq in defiance of law so that Bin Laden could remain free. Now that's friendship!

But W always thinks of others, like him choosing Iraq to get back at the bad man who made Daddy lose the election back in the day. Such a good boy!

7.

Ahh, the hell with it, if you don't get it yet, you never will. Bush is a brainless puppet controlled by the powers that be in such an open and blatant fashion that it is difficult even for me to believe.

But those facetious points are him, whether his supporters like it or not. Now in case any had a bowl of DumbFlakes for breakfast, let me state clearly hear that I am not a Bush supporter, and agree with none of those things above that he has done, or let be done.

Particularly all the dead teenagers who were killed for Halliburton.

Dean West

Proclamation of the P.L.O.

2005-02-07T04:22:00.000-08:00

For P.E.T.A. to accuse fur wearers of bloody barbarism is fine. I agree that those who would kill an animal for their own sick purposes are monsters. But give the animal killers credit. At least their prey can fight back and/or run. Not so with P.E.T.A.'s victims.

While an animal can at least cry out, the skulking cowards that call themselves vegetarians choose to slaughter the truly silent victims - plants. Our ambulatorily challenged brethren can neither run, fight, or scream, but can only wait in mute terror at the approach of a tractor or scythe.

As a man who was raised in the killing fields of the midwest, I can assure you that the carnage is truly vast. At the time of year euphemistically refered to as "The Harvest", thousands of square miles of innocent plant life is mowed down, their chlorophyl staining our soil and our souls. Most will be ate, but many will be left behind, torn from their roots and buried alive, so that their rotting bodies can fertilize a larger crop for next years massacre.

Jeremy Bentham, father of animal rights, once said, "The question is not whether animals can think, but whether they can feel." In this statement he displays his own chauvinistic "Kingdomism" as he completely overlooks the Plant Kingdom. The real question is not whether a plant can think or feel - there are mentally retarded and/or paralyzed humans who cannot - but rather, "are they alive?".

Our carbon based comrades qualify. P.E.T.A., and other vegicidal maniacs, must stop spilling the chlorophyl of our plant partners. We animals must recognize that all life is equal, and that we have no right to impose our will on weaker beings.

It is quite possible to live off fruit fallen from the tree, and quite moral, if you then plant the seeds from it. This type of peacefull partnership does not allow for our swarming billions, but instead mandates a greater harmony and quality of life amongst the thousand or so humans who could be nurtured by Mother Earth in such a fashion.

Dean "Dances with Corn" West
Chairbeing of the Plant Liberation Organization

Will you listen to Mr. Smith?

2005-02-06T19:21:00.000-08:00

The movie called "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is an outstanding movie. I believe that Jimmy Stewart was a remarkable actor and a great man. He was given the role after Gary Cooper was unavailable for it. This Frank Capra movie was based on Lewis R. Foster's story, "The Gentleman From Montana".

In it, the junior Senator of Montana dies, and the governor needs to appoint a replacement. There is a Deficiency Bill coming up for vote, and in it is some well hidden graft, involving the construction at Federal expense of a dam at the headwaters of Willard Creek.

The governor, the senior Senator, and Jim Taylor - newspaper owner, and head of the Political Machine that runs all in that state - all own some land around there so that they'll make a fortune when this goes through.

They first attempt to have the governor appoint a Taylor man, who will do as he's told. This does not go down well with the public or the Governor, who fears his re-election chances. The governor then hits upon an idea, inadvertantly suggested to him by his children.

He will appoint Jefferson Smith, leader of the State's "Boy Rangers" - a Boy Scout type organization - and who is a hero for assisting in a forest fire. He is also so politically naive and patriotic that he would never be able to decipher the bill, and would simply vote "yes" at the appropriate time.

As it happens, Mr. Smith's father had worked with the senior Senator, long ago, when Senator Paine was but a lawyer. Senator Paine had told Mr. Smith's father that "lost causes are the only ones worth fighting". Later, Mr. Smith's father, who was the editor of a small and radical newspaper, was killed by politically corrupt interests, that he'd been exposing.

When Mr. Smith then arrives in Washington, D.C., he is everything they could have hoped for, and perhaps a bit more! He is staggeringly naive, and simply fascinated about all the monuments to the founders of our nation.

The press have a field day with him though, and make fun of him quite severely. When he seeks to have it out with them, they tell him some hard truths - like that he is a stooge and "yes man" and a play Senator. Stung, and meaning well, he seeks out Senator Paine and asks to be briefed on the upcoming bills - just what they don't want.

So he's told to work on his own bill, to come up with an idea that would help, and he, believeing them sincere, does so. He proposes a National Boy's Camp to be created, with a loan from Congress to be paid back by the boy's who would attend, a bit at a time. Not knowing any better, he proposes it be at the headwaters of - you guessed it - Willard Creek.

This prompts a behind the scenes showdown in which he is fully and painfully exposed to the facts of life - and that his hero, Senator Paine, is a Taylor man bought and paid for. Senator Paine begs Mr. Smith to play ball, and to compromise for such good as they can then do on other issues in future. Taylor offers him any job he wants, including a guaranteed win in the election next time.

He is warned that if he tries to blow the whistle, that Taylor will crush him.

The next day, Mr. Smith stands up in Congress to denounce the graft, anyway. His hero, Senator Paine interupts him before he starts, to ask if he may have the floor. Suspecting no betrayal, Mr. Smith yields, and then listens in shock as Senator Paine denounces Mr. Smith himself for trying to introduce graft in the form of a National Boy's Camp - in the Willard Creek area that Mr. Smith owns land in!

For sure enough, as we see in the Senate Investigation that follows, the Taylor machine has forged papers and documents to show that rather then the land being owned by their dummy companies, it is owned by Jefferson Smith!

Battered and beaten, Mr. Smith ponders going home, till his Senatorial Aide convinces him to stay and fight for what is right.

Mr. Smith then decides, with her help, to ask for one week to go back and get proof of his innocence - but barring them granting that, he intends a filibuster.

A filibuster is, or used to be, the right of any Senator to keep on speaking indefinitely, once he has been lawfully granted the floor. Having once been granted the floor, the law then says that he cannot be forced to stop until he either sits down, or stops talking, or voluntarily yields. Otherwise, he may speak on, no matter how inconvenient for anyone else.

The Senate refuses to grant him that week, so having secured the floor - he declares the Filibuster!

Of course, they try to trick him, and get him to yield, but he doesn't fall for that. They try to leave him in there by himself, but as he is then the majority of the Senate, he moves and votes for them to have to come back and listen! He calls for a quorum, which compels a certain number of them to always be in attendance.

Yes, he does many of the standard readings of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. He also has many powerfully moving things to say, and is quite idealistic about our nation.

He says at one point:

"Because I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules, if behind them they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, every day kindness...and a little looking out for the other fellah, too."

While this is happening, it is then arranged for the boys in the Boy Ranger organization to get the truth out via their own newspaper - as the Taylor machine is busy lying to the people, accusing Jefferson Smith of holding up the Deficiency Bill for his own immoral purposes.

The children no sooner do so though, when the Taylor machine then breaks in and smashes their presses, steals their paper, and runs the boys off the road. Spontaneous demonstrations in favor of Jefferson Smith are put down by the police with fire hoses.

All is done to see to it that Jefferson Smith must lose, and the public, easily led as always, responds by not only believing it, but flooding D.C. with letters and cablegrams demanding that Mr. Smith yield the floor.

Mr. Smith, having been speaking for 23 hours and 16 minutes straight, is unaware that all is lost, that everything is now hopeless, and that not only is there no proof to be found, but that all his supporters have been crushed, and the population turned against him.

He is speaking, trying to get those in the Senate to see the accomplishments of man, how we have left behind jungle law, and how there is no room in the Senate for graft or lies or deception. As I said, he had been picked for his naivety...

He is interupted by Senator Paine, who brings word that the people of his state have responded, and that they are all against him. He then has baskets and baskets of letters and cablegrams brought in, all demanding that Mr. Smith yield the floor, that he give up, that he stop fighting. All is truly lost, and he has no one to support him.

It is at this point that I wish to transcibe his speech, the words he said from that point on, when nearly a day had gone by......

"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once. For the only reason that any man ever fights for them.

Because of just one plain simple rule. "Love thy neighbor". And in this world today full of hatred, the man who knows that rule has a great trust. You know that rule, Mr. Paine. And I loved you for it, just as my father did. And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder then for any others.

Yes, you even die for them. Like a man we both knew, Mr. Paine.

You think I'm licked? You all think I'm licked?

Well, I'm not licked!

And I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause. Even if this room gets filled with lies like these. And the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place.

Somebody will listen to me...Somebody..."

Then he passes out. Physically and emotionally and spiritually exhausted beyond all endurance.

Then the movie, believable up till now, descends into fantasy, for Senator Paine, filled with remorse, attempts to blow his head off, then when stopped, confesses all so that Mr. Smith is vindicated, and the day is saved.

What is to be learned from all this, besides Mr. Smith's obvious common sense insight into what is real and important, and further, how noble the ideals our nation once stood for were?

We can learn that it's been a long time since the 1930s, is what we can learn. And that even the 1930s weren't quite noble enough for that movie to be believable even then. While this movie was playing in 1939, that was the decade that had seen the Great Depression, the packing of the Supreme Court, the Bonus Army Massacre, the proliferation of the Alphabet Soup agencies of corruption and interference, and much more.

"Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is not so much a movie that describes what once was, as it describes what we like to kid ourselves is what can be. It never was that way, and never will be. No matter what, you just cannot have a government that is based on force and fraud, and have any good come of it. And all governments are based on force and fraud. That's what makes them governments.

And if any proof were really needed for that, if there are any Mr. Smiths yet out there saying, "No, Dean is just too cynical, the system can work."....then know this.....

Our government, ever fearful that somehow, someway a Mr. Smith might slip into their ranks, had already, before the movie was made, taken that right away.

Surprise!

Back in 1917, the Senate adopted a rule that allowed for 2/3 of the Senate to vote down a filibuster at whim. The House had already done so decades back. Not content with that, it's been modified and remodified, and it would take but 3/5 now to silence Mr. Smith.

And what Mr. Smith has our government ever produced?....funny you'd ask.....

The record for a filibuster was set in 1957 by a man named Strom Thurmond who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes, or about 20 minutes longer then the mythical Jefferson Smith did.

Wow!!

It must have been for a very important reason for him to be so dedicated and impassioned. Of course it was. He was keeping the Civil Rights Act of 1957 from passsing. Which is why you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1957...

Only once has anyone used it for any where near the purpose that Jefferson Smith was shown using it - and actually, it wasn't for all that good a motive. Really. But in any case, that was Senator Huey Long. He was soon enough assassinated. Big shock that such a troublemaker to the powers that be would have such an unusual thing happen to him.

Of course, it still existed in the watery and diluted form. Yet even the last remnant of potential freedom can't escape our government's ever watchful eye. Which is why the Republican led Congress is threatening to get rid of it on a technicality. Check this link out, sometime....

Resist the Filibuster Fiat (washingtonpost.com)

In any case, I did enjoy the movie. Mr. Smith's closing words always bring a tear to my eye. He says, "Somebody will listen to me. Somebody..."

I'm listening.

Dean West

Courtesy. Manners. Politeness.

2005-02-05T23:49:00.000-08:00

Are these the effeminate fakings of weaklings and hypocrites? For such is what is thought.

The English are known for their politeness and manners, and are also given the reputation as wimps. Apparently it is forgotten that these "wimps" ruled three quarters of the planet at their peak.

Courtesy, manners and politeness are not then something solely for wimps. What are they for?

Lubrication. It keeps us from rubbing up against each other abrasively. It keeps things more friction free, it helps things run smoother. Without it the machinery of society would break down.

Robert Heinlein in his book, "Friday" described it thusly:

"Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms....but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners is more significant then a riot.....

This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength."

True enough. And the entirety of Western Civilization shows this symptom in abundance.

When I tell people my name is Dean West, they call me "Dean", not "Mr. West". I answer the same, but one way would have affirmed me more.

When it's a wrong number, and I politely say so, the caller snorts and slams the phone down. It ends the call just the same, but one way would have made me feel better.

Bosses and such will flat out give an order rather then ask it politely, and even though I'd have to do it either way, one way is more kind and gentle.

Telemarketers call at dinner and semi-friends presume upon a vague relation and spouses don't thank each other and clerk's say, "next" instead of asking, "may I help you?".

What is the answer to halting such a decline as we see? That is up to each individual to try to slow the process. It is not a matter of a mass movement or a law, but of each of us insisting on our personal space, on our boundaries, on a certain manner and style of how we will allow ourselves to be treated.

And, of course, being courteous to those around us who deserve it - but to those who don't, letting them know it. One should always reward good behavior - so as to encourage it. One should never reward bad behavior - for you would not wish to encourage that.

My girlfriend Cathy, a woman in Australia, related to me a story where uninvited guests would drop by her home, even during dinner time, and not take any subtle hint to leave. Even when she'd start to clean the kitchen to give them the broad hint. So she gave them a rag so they could do it!

She asked in an internet philosophy club if she was being whiny for complaining about such people's behavior. I told her she was not. That it's common to resent such interuptions, what's not so common is for somone to have the courage to speak up and admit that they don't like such things.

I'm glad she had the courage to admit that she actually enjoyed having some time to do what she liked, not endlessly be there for every stranger that strolls by looking to be entertained or assisted.

I like Henry David Thoreau's thoughts on such:

"I had some guests from those not reckoned commonly among the town's poor, but who should be; who are among the world's poor, at any rate; guests who appeal, not to your hospitality, but to your hospitalality; who earnestly wish to be helped, and preface their appeal with the information that they are resolved, for one thing, never to help themselves.

I require of a visitor that he be not actually starving, though he may have the very best appetite in the world, however he got it. Objects of charity are not guests.

Men who did not know when their visit had terminated, though I went about my business again, answering them from greater and greater remoteness."

From his book, "Walden" in the chapter on "Visitors".

It tickles me that one of the greatest geniuses our planet has ever seen would simply withdraw and pick up a hatchet and start chopping wood in the hope that they'd go and leave him alone!

He didn't ever actually mind helping someone who wanted to help themselves, he even assisted a runaway slave or would split his dinner if the person was polite and entertaining and not specifically there simply for food.

And....they had to listen to him, as well as just having him listen to them.

I know where Cathy was coming from, and just the types that would invade her space. She does well to withdraw, and well to complain, for not a one of them that I've ever heard of from her wants to hear anything of what she'd like to talk about, but only to share foolish gossip and borrow off all her tools and appliances!

Such are not only thieves of materials, but thieves of her time....and for the most part, they are thieves of the very oxygen that many others of us could put to far better use!!

I also gave her some specific advice on how to secure her space.

One must be in a position to have say over who comes through a door, or who does not. Each of us needs to learn how to say, "I'm sorry, I'm to busy to be about entertaining now, please call sometime and we might figure something out. Thanks." *shuts door*

Don't be afraid to be rude, it's always amusing, and quite moral when their presence is a rudeness first! Rudeness is like punching, it's only immoral if you do it first in an attack, not if you do it second in defense.

Many more of us have these same problems, even when we may not realize it. Many of us let these parasites steal inordinate amounts of life minutes and life hours from us, often adding up into life years. If all these strangers would leave us alone, then kill us five years before we were due to die, we'd still have been better off, for while we'd have lived just as long as had they visited, we'd not have had to hear them!!

And no, we aren't being rude or callous for insisting on space. Such labels as that are what the parasites wish you to think, so you can "guilt" yourself into serving them, and catering to their needs. They use your own desire to appear good in the eyes of others as a weapon against you.
"Serve me or I will think unkind thoughts - and spread those thoughts to all I see.", is what they are really saying. Which is nothing more then flat out extortion and slander, though people like her and I are thought to be the rude ones for our more vigorous insistence on space and boundaries.

Are we the rude ones? Is it truly that those who know the value of their lives, of their time, that are to be rude in assessing these things as of having great value? For I should think that there is little of false pride involved in valuing my very own life highly, and much shame were I to not.
I say those who think that they are "owed" everything from eggs to lawn tools, to the most precious gift of all - your time and your life - are the rude ones.

These are the rude ones who so casually assume that their Sunday afternoon's entertainment is to be paid for by your Sunday afternoon boredom, and that the 8 hours you spent working for the blender they need to borrow is to be their's by right - which is nothing more then making you their retroactive slave, for obviously then that 8 hours you spent was 8 hours working for them!

When a neighbor keeps a borrowed item, it is always forgot that it is your time and work that was really borrowed, and when you don't get the item back, then every minute you spent to get that item was really just spent on making that thief happy!

That is "rude", to say the least. And to complain when people like Cathy or I dig in our heels and say, "get back", is most definitively them being rude about it.

The examples of uninvited guests and permanent borrowers are are but two of the many types of rude people that you must all learn to protect yourselves from. What these and the other types have in common is that they are all stealing in a way.

Be it time or money or harmony, be it a Sunday afternoon, a blender or a *bump* with no "pardon me" - it's all a theft of time and harmony. There is little enough of either in a person's life for them not to work on keeping all of those two things that they can. And avoiding taking those two things from any other.

Politeness does not mean you cannot fight back. When the telemarketer is rude enough to call at 7pm, be rude enough back to hang up on him, for if you wait to get a word in edgewise, you'll be waiting quite a time.

When some co-worker drops by to say, "Hi" uninvited, feel free to say, "Hi. What's wrong?" and when he stammers "nothing, just stopping by", say, "Thanks, see you at work" and then close the door.

Oh, but feelings might get hurt by my advice, what of the lubrication I spoke of? I believe in it. I just don't think rude people are encouraged to change by being given their way each time they are rude.

Reward only good behavior. Not these rude ones. It matters not whether they were raised right either, you weren't put on this Earth to study and learn of the motives of six billion other people. You are here to live, and live as well as you can, and if someone else was raised in a barn, then it is not your duty to spend an all to short life span indulging their limitations.

Dean West

U.S. Tax Rate 96.42%

2005-02-04T03:56:00.000-08:00

What is the defining aspect of a government?

Taxes.

From Biblical times the government is known for being "The guys that get to take our stuff." They were also simultaneously known as, "The guys who get to take us." But it amounts to the same thing, for he either takes you to work his field, or he lets you work your field, but then takes your that. Your labor and lifetime is lost all the same.

Consider the story in 1 Samuel 8 of the Bible, where the people petition for a King, that they can be like all the other nations.

They are advised, supposedly by God himself, that among a whole list of slaveries, the King will also, "take your sons and appoint them for himself", he will have your sons "reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war", he will "take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take a tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants" and "he will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you."

Doesn’t look like things change much. Except for the worse, for we would not cry out if such were our King, for that is a remarkably nice King who only takes ten percent, uses that for his servants rather then secret police, and at least when he sends our sons to war, goes out with them.

How is it that what was feared then, is accepted as benign now? The difference is only that since science and industry have managed to progress in spite of the government, we benefit from that. Thus we can sit in cages that are smaller then those of our ancestors - but since our cages have plumbing and electricity, we count ourselves better off. We forget that while the plumbing and electricity came from ourselves, the decreased size of the cage came entirely from the government.

Why do we not keep the gadgets and get rid of cage? Because we fear what our government will do to us if we try. For even when our government was much smaller and nicer, Henry David Thoreau was still upset with them, for they allowed slavery.

Henry advised withholding his taxes, but pointed out, "But if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon."

How true. And how sad. If you honestly withdraw your support from these force initiators, by "leaving the smaller cage", they will take all your gadgets, and still pursue you and yours. And where Thoreau had at least the option of selling his labor to live, our government now taxes that too. Where Thoreau had at least the option to "squat somewhere", our government now prohibits that, boots you out of "our" public parks, and sees to it that you must work and pay taxes.

And what are these taxes? In any form they are a slavery, for the only difference between the enslaved and the taxed is that the second is called "free". But other then what you are called, you work for your master, he tells you what is his, and what he leaves for you, and you have no choice in it.

True, you are lulled by the ritual of voting, but you do not vote for whether you will have a master or not, but only which type of master you will slave for. Even then it is not a case of you choosing which master you serve, but only that you are allowed to express a preference, and if other slaves agree, and the masters allow, that preference may occur.

How little it takes to fool a man!

The pure slave of the old south had a cage far smaller then even ours. And no gadgets. But that our cage can be said to be larger then some as well as smaller then many, changes not that we are slaves.

It may be said that we are "part time" slaves as opposed to "full time" ones of old. This is true, but some part time endeavors sure seem like full time ones. How close are we to full time slavery? Closer then you would possibly imagine...

When I look at my own paycheck, I see that around 21% is taken out by the government. At the least then, I am a slave 21% of the time, or for 2 months and 16 days out of the year.

It has been said that the average man’s total tax burden, when sales tax and property tax are figured in, as well as licensing fees, registration fees, and such, is around 45%. Since we must pay such things, I am then a slave 45% of the time, or for 5 months and 2 weeks out of the year.

It is commonly forgotten that we pay other people’s taxes too. In the last point, someone probably thought, "I don’t pay property tax, I’m a renter.", forgetting that their landlord simply passed this charge on to you in your rent. When the total amount of taxes on each step of a product is considered, we see that it is far more then you would think.

Even a can of corn has innumerable taxes on it. The land the corn grew on is taxed. The farmer’s labor is taxed. His profits are taxed. The truck driver who hauls the corn is taxed and registered and licensed. The cannery is property taxed, income taxed, profit taxed, etc. Another truck, then a store with all those taxes. But we forgot all the taxes on the miners who got the metal that made the can that the canneries used for the corn. And we are forgetting many more people, factories and steps in this process of delivering to you one can of corn. And we forget the government steals from every single one of these thousand and one steps.

The figure I usually hear is 90%, and given how many workers and companies are involved in any one product, that even seems low. But let us accept that without the government taxing everyone and everything, each product from a cup of coffee to a new home would only cost 10% of what it costs now.

Out of $100 earned, I am allowed to keep $55 of it. I go out to by what I need to live and be happy, and in exchange for $55 I receive back $5.50 in good or services, with the 90%, or $49.50 going to the government! Out of every $100 earned, I am allowed $5.50 for myself, for a rate of theft that now stands at 94.5%.

This means that I am then a slave 94.5% of the time, or for 11 months and 2 weeks.

There is another tax, this one called inflation. It always makes me wonder how people can believe the government fights inflation when they are the only ones who can cause it. They are in charge of the supply of money. In theory, these pieces of paper stand for something, in reality…well, that’s another article.

The point here is that when there is a set amount of money, people will charge certain prices based upon the comparative scarcity or plenty of that money. A cup of coffee costs $2. If it were announced that the government, by law, was doubling the money supply then everyone would realize that this would mean that each piece of paper was worth only half as much as before. They would therefore expect to get twice as much pieces of paper for any coffee they sold, or any labor, products, etc.

But our government does not announce such things. When our government prints up "extra" money, above and beyond whatever the money actually is based on, they then use this to buy things that they want - at the current, pre-inflationary prices!

These companies then use that money to buy other things, but this influx is already causing adjustments in the market that lead to higher prices (or the asking of twice as much paper money to reflect the fact that it now has half of it’s old value). The first companies get singed a bit. The next to spend get singed more. Finally it comes down to us, and while got none of the extra money, we note that coffee is now $4.

Now if a person saves $1,000 in a savings account in 1980, and such is enough to buy one average car, then let us see what happens. Let us assume an interest rate such that he has 10% more in the savings account per year. In 1981 he has $1,100. But in that same year, the government inflated the currency. They did not create so much extra paper as to halve the value of the money, they only inflated the currency by 10%, so that a car that had cost $1,000 now costs $1,100.

Had the government not done this, then the man who prudently saved $1,000 for one year could have not only bought a new car, but had $100 left over to celebrate with, or invest further.

Since the government inflated the currency, it is as if they stole $100 from this man personally, for his bank balance of $1,100 does not buy him any extra product.

So how much percent of your wages is stolen in inflation? This is almost impossible to figure in an exact way, but there is a way that you can find out in general. I note that when I started work at a fast food restaurant in 1985 that minimum wage was $3.35. I note that in the year 2004, when my son started work at a fast food restaurant, that minimum wage is $5.15.

In theory, this would represent the government’s own claim that inflation has been such that $3.35 worth of goods and services in 1985 now costs $5.15 in 2004. We all might speculate that they have given a rather low estimate of inflation in that 19 year period, but let us accept it.
This seems small, but it means a 53% increase in what it costs you to live. In other words, to hire a minimum wage person, you do not offer him $3.35, you offer him that, plus an additional 53%, or about $1.80 more. (These are rounded and approximate figures)

Now it will be said that you have such "extra" money, for your own wage was similarly affected by inflation. What is that argument but an attempt to say that theft balanced out? The falsity of that is easily seen when it is realized that only the original purchasers of "old-priced goods" for "lesser valued money" came out ahead, the rest of us came out behind (in varying degrees, but all behind) by having to use more of our now "lesser valued money" for higher priced goods.

That the sum total of "those few who came out far ahead" (the government) balanced with "those many who came out behind" (us) averaged out to everything being the same again, just at a higher numerical level, is true, but irrelevant. Your recovery from the previous robberies does not make the current ones any better, or excuse the past ones in the least.

For practical purposes then, you do not have that "extra" money, and never did, and it is more effort for you to hire a minimum wage person now, then 19 years ago. For even with all being equal now you are still in the position of having recovered from a robbery, and thus not having the resources available that you ordinarily would have had, if the robbery not occurred.

Confused? When the new, lesser valued money flows in, the government benefits by buying all those goods at the old pre-inflation prices. Companies quickly realize this, and raise the prices of their products to compensate themselves. They do NOT raise your salary at the same time. After they have gained back some of what they lost (through people like you paying more of your set income for the same amount of goods), then, at some later point, they will raise your salary, usually after two or three such robberies.

You come home from work from your $50 a day job. You come to my lemonade stand each day and pay $1 for a drink. As a lemonade company, I note a 53% inflation (due to the sudden extra charges that my suppliers saddle me with) so I raise the price to $1.53. You are still being paid the same.

At the end of the month, you will have paid out $15.90 extra then last month (30 days times 53 cents), but you will not have a raise. At the end of the year, if you are lucky, you may get a raise, and it may (ha, ha) be 53%. At that point, you will have paid out $193.45 extra for lemonade. (365 days times 53 cents)

Now your $50 a day job has been raised to $76.50 per day, (this is obviously a best case scenario, and pretty much pure utopian fantasy, but observe how bad even this is) to reflect the 53% inflation in the prices you must pay to live and be happy. When you then complain to a government thief that, "The price of lemonade is 53% higher due to your theft!", he calmly assures you it’s fine, for you are being paid 53% more yourself! But only after that year where you lost $193.45 first!

Do you get it now? The robbery is bit by bit, year by year, spread out and around, but always there. When you tally all the lag time between the price increases and your salary increases, you will find that it is exactly the same as if I say that everything in existence costs you 53% more then it should, right now.

That is exactly what it is. When it comes down to it, in the lemonade example, you were paying 2% of your daily labor for a cup of lemonade. After inflation you were paying 3.05% of your daily labor for that same cup of lemonade. With your raise, after one year, you are paying 2% of your daily labor for a cup of lemonade again - but what of that whole year? And what product is priced higher now, for when you come to me with your happy news that you got a raise, will you not see that my sign now says, "Lemonade: $2.34"?

Did you forget that it was the 53% inflation that raised my price from $1 to $1.53, and that since it is still occurring, that another 53% increase raises it to $2.34?

Sure, it’s never so smooth, and usually not so much so fast, but it is always there, regardless as to the rate of it slowing or speeding up, depending on the masters in power. Maybe it’s a low percent one year, and a high percent another, but the inflation is always there. Maybe others get hurt, maybe the lemonade guy gets hurt, but it’s a sure bet that you always get hurt.

I have not the time to figure out the inflationary theft from my life on a month by month, year by year basis. I note that a minimum wage worker costs me (should I wish to hire one), 53% more then it did 19 years ago, this then is the amount extra I pay for everything in my life, above and beyond what I should have to.

So. I earn $100. The government takes $45 in direct taxes, fees, etc. Then they take another $49.50 in indirect taxes, the money I have to pay extra so that others can pay their taxes. This leaves me with $5.50 for myself, to spend on what I need. But the cost of the goods I need are 53% higher then they should be. What costs me $1 should really cost me 65 cents. Therefore, the $5.50 of actual purchasing power I am left, will purchase me goods that should be valued at only $3.58!

We are then down to this. That of $100 you earn, you will receive $3.58 worth of goods and services for that. 96.42% of your labor is stolen, scammed, or otherwise lost to the U.S. Government.

You are a full time slave!

Consider the ramifications of all this. Typically a man works from the age of 16 to 60, at which point he has presumably saved up enough money to retire, and has probably has already paid off his home. 44 years of labor invested, home and retirement in exchange.

But it wasn’t 44 years of his labor invested in his home and retirement plan. 42 years and 5 months was spent working for the government, for 96.42% of 44 years works out to that. Everything you own at the age of 60, everything you worked and sweated and saved for, was purchased by only 1 year and 7 months of your labor. The rest was just the price you had to pay to satisfy your masters.

Many reading this are saying, "Wait a minute, I knew the government was bad, I’m as Libertarian and free market as they come, but it can’t be that bad! If that were true, you could retire one year and seven months after your first full time job!"

Well, your first job pays less then your last job, a 16 year old who spends "time X" earning $100 will find that when he is 36 the same "time X" will earn twice that, even after inflation is factored in. Or $3.58 versus $7.16. But in essence, it is true. You could, if untaxed and unregulated (for we didn’t even figure the thefts and destructions caused by regulatory compliances), and if there was no inflation, retire within 5 years after starting a full time job - with a house, furnishings, and all else a 60 year old man could be expected to have, but at the age of 21 to 23 instead.

This state of affairs is only made possible by the advanced state of our economy which in spite of the government has invested more capital per worker then any other nation. This allows for fantastic rates of productivity, rates that you would enjoy, if it weren’t being siphoned off as fast as you make it. As it stands though, the part left is still fantastic in comparison to what people of other nations are left, especially as their economies were never allowed to grow as large as ours.

Such is easier to understand if you look around at these other nations who never had what little freedom we once did, who have governments that tax and regulate them all the more, who suffer from inflation far in excess of ours. How often have you heard of some country where the typical worker earns the "equivalent" of $3 a month?

They earn so little for their labor, and we so much in comparison with them, that it would be hard for them to believe that our existence is possible. For them to imagine being able to retire at the age of 60 with all that an average American has is magical to them, and hardly to be believed.

We are so used to comparing ourselves to those worse off, that we forget that there are other ways of comparing our standard of living. A person robbed every other day can look at a person robbed every day and think, "I’m well off". Or he could imagine not being robbed at all, and think, "I’m not well off".

Were there to be an "alternate America", where everyone had liberty, and such thefts and destructions as our government causes with their taxes, regulations and inflation did not exist - then we would look as poor to them, as a third world nation looks to us. And just as the third world peasant doubts that a U.S. citizen could have so much abundance for so little labor, so we would doubt that the Alternate American freeman could have so much more abundance for so much less labor.

Yet such Alternate Americans could indeed have all you have at 60 when they were only 21. Just imagine how much more they would have if they kept working till 60, even at 4 hours a day!

When you hear someone like me rail against the government, don’t dismiss it as raw anger. For it is often very carefully reasoned anger, an anger that is felt for the same reason a third world peasant is angry at his dictator. That type of anger is felt when it is realized that the government’s day to day normal operations grind more of us down, and more consistently, then any number of random property seizures, pork barrel spending, or Hawaiian Junkets ever did.

For if I am a slave for 96.42% of the time I spend at labor, then I can figure out how much of my life is purely and completely wasted. In that 44 year period that I must work to have what I could have got after 1 year 7 months, I noted that this is 42 years and 5 months of slavery. But that is simply the total time that goes by while I am working.

To figure the most purely wasted part, I must calculate that I work 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks a year, or a total of 2,080 hours. To be fair, I assume one week of vacation, and let us say one week of sickness. The total hours for the year are thus 2,000. I multiply this by the 42 years and get 84,000 hours. I multiply those 40 hour weeks times the twenty weeks that are in five months, and get 800 more hours, or a total of 84,800 hours of pure waste.

To put it in more normal terms, I divide by 24 to tell me that this equals approximately 3,533 days. I divide that by 365 to tell me that it equals 9.67 years, or about 9 years and 8 months.

Nine years and eight months!

But not some simple sentence of punishment, wherein we can simply serve ten years, then be set at liberty for the rest of our life. No, even that would be too easy, too nice. This ten year term of pure slavery is spread out over that 44 years, and thus colors your entire life.

Every day you come home late, every weekend that you must work, every time you are grumpy because of your boss, every bit of stress and tension that comes from working day in and day out for over four decades, the shadow that such a long indenture casts upon every aspect of your being, the sure knowledge that when you reach the age where you no longer have to work you will be at the end of your years, and that even then, upon your retirement, your savings will inflated away, while the prices of your basic needs spiral up, until finally you die and know in your death that over half of what you managed to leave to your loved ones will go to the masters who made your life a faint shadow of the glory it could have been…and that this is completely the fault of our government’s insatiable greed, and it’s people’s incredible apathy.

Were they to leave me in freedom until the age of 69 (ten years short of the average lifespan of 79), then take a gun and kill me, it would be kinder. For while I would have lived no longer then I actually live now (for slavery counts as no part of a life), I would have at least been completely at liberty for the time I had.

Dean West

Investment Advice!

2005-02-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

There are six billion people on this planet, and you are richer and better off then 90% of them, just for being born American or Western. If you are in America, Canada, Australia, England or New Zealand, you have something others want.

Money.

When you see an investment opportunity, you need to know some things.

1. Never invest in anything that you are approached about. Period. If you are looking to invest, then actually look into things and pick something after much research. Investing in anything in which someone came to you is a bad idea.

For such investments that are truly good need only sit back and with regular advertising be noticed. The ones that have their members out their drumming up business are the ones to worry over.

True, it is natural for an investor who had a positive experience to wish to share a good tip with a friend. Sometimes. But the rich in this nation did not get rich by being counseled by friends. They got rich by work and research and effort. (I am aware of the exceptions, such as our President. I am also aware that he's not reading this!)

2. "If it sounds too good to be true it probably is" is a lie. That statement should read, "If it sounds too good to be true it definitely is" No probablies about it.

You should never expect more then a 10 percent of return on an investment. Hell, who are we kidding, we'd be in heaven to get a 10% return!

I am aware that we all know some people in life or in news who have got more back. But there is a difference between special cases and the norm.

Any investment that purports to safely give a return in excess of the norm should be avoided. Ten percent itself is above the norm, so be careful. What's the norm? Call your bank and ask what interest they'll give on a savings account. Multiply that by 1.5 and that's what a reasonably competent investor could expect. Sometimes you could multiply by as much as 2.

3. Knowing of a good new invention or process or service that will revolutionize the market may well allow those who get in first to make a killing. But what are the odds that we in our apartments, trailers, and mortgaged houses have the connections and such to know of that?

And if mercifully someone comes by to tell us....well, gee, if the invention is that staggering, why didn't the rich that it was offered to first grab up all of it?

Be aware of your own insignificance, as I am aware of mine. This does not make us bad people, it makes us audience members of a large and intricate financial game being played all over Earth. It is unlikely that you are to be invited into the game for any good and decent motive, any more then Michael Jordan is going to invite you to make the free throw shot for him during the big game.

4. Overseas companies. I am aware of the reasons for such, notably avoiding our nation's excessive taxes. I am also aware that the people overseas know us to be pampered suckers. The Nigerians are notable for this view, and sad to say, they are most often right.

Do not invest overseas. If you are then burned there is nothing you can do. Getting burned investing here in America - well, there's probably still not much you can do, but at least you could then drive by the place and spit at it!

Not so when the office is in Burma!

5. Bad reports of them are a bad sign. But....

Good reports only are a bad sign! When you see some net investment opportunity and all the research shows glowing testimonials, web communities busy singing the company's praises, "investigative sites" you've not heard of saying, "They are solid as a rock!" and electronic magazines featuring the company on the front page as it's Number One Safe Place To Put Your Money......

Start to smell a rat.

My god, if anything was truly good enough to get such a uniformly positive response it would be on the news. The "real" non-net news on your TV.

In reality though, such companies as are supposedly so perfect rarely make the news till the inevitable bankruptcy...

6. Never be fooled by friends telling you they got paid back already. Your friends may be telling the truth, but are themselves being scammed.

Here's how it works. I ask two people to invest in DeanCo. They each pony up $100. One month later I give them each their $100 back, plus an additonal $25 each as the "interest" their investment earned.

You'll note that all I'm out now is $50....and I have two rich people who now fully trust me.

They then say, "Gee, I should have invested a $1,000, for I'd have made $250!"

So these two each give me $1,000.....and they start telling their friends about me.

I am holding $1,950 in my hand. (I put my own $50 back in my sock!) I see four people now at my door, each with $1,000.

Now I have $5,950, and I can now send a check for $250 to my first two investors.

I now have $5,450. The four who came to my door have now sent 8 people to my door.

They give me $1,000 a piece. So I now have $13,450 in hand. I pay $250 to each of the second round of investors, the four. So have now $12,450 in hand. I also pay of the first round again, so have $11,950 in hand.

Then 16 people show up.....

You see how I keep getting a higher and higher balance of money in my hand, how my current investors are paid by a smidge of that balance, and so while all looks well, while everyone is being paid....there is no investment going on at all, just me playing with everyone's money?

Inevitably, the 16 will fail to find 32. Or the 512 won't find 1,024. I can, if I like, "cover losses" for a bit. Hell, I can keep it going for a year or two, with care. But inevitably, some persistent nosey body will want to see just what I'm investing in or selling or making. I can even carry it further, and invest in real investment plans, hell, done right it'd be easy to lease a large office building, and even staff it.

But inevitably I got nothing. And it all collapses. For it's all based on no one wanting their money back - for notice that I was only paying out the interest, if I had to pay back the principle that would really hurt!

This is called a Ponzi Scheme, after the Mr. Ponzi who came to America in the early twentieth century and did it. Wasn't even much of a crime back then, for he didn't claim to do anything but try to get money for people. Well...he did. And inevitably failed to keep growing.

So...long story to show this - your friends getting rich on it doesn't mean you will. And it might mean your friends will be sad one day.

Now.

Do I have any positive investment advice?

1. Do your own research. Remember that the broker blowing smoke up your ass is half your age and driving a used Escort. So why are you paying him?

2. Do not trust in our system any more - banks, government, retirement plans. These are not the days where investing in just the big companies and banks would be safe. They are only safe...till they aren't. Only the big boys with connections will get out in time. You will lose your 401K, your retirement fund, your savings, your all.

3. As to what to actually do - Do your own research.

Me, I'd advise anyone on what NOT to do. And I'd advise on how to research things. But I'd not wish to advise on what to actually invest in, and if you see me do so, then treat me with the same skepticism that you'd treat anyone on the net with.

In other words, you should be leery of investing on someone's word if they stand to gain by it. Me recommending stock in a company I have stock in - clearly I benefit. Me saying, "Buy gold", clearly I don't - unless my brother-in-law owns the gold store!

Does this mean keep it in your mattress? No, for then the government will inflate it away while you sleep. Clever of them, huh?

No, it means that making money is work, and nothing anyone says can change the fact that if you don't do the work, you won't actually make any money - in the long run.

I can tell any of you how to work to find safety. But I can't just make you safe. I can point to a cliff to advise you not to go over it. But I can't show where the rainbow ends.

Dean West

Free Will

2005-02-02T01:25:00.000-08:00

Here are the lyrics to the song "Freewill" by Rush:

There are those who think that life is nothing to left to chance,

A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings

we dance on the strings

Of powers we cannot perceive.

The stars aren't aligned, or the god's are malign,

blame is better to give then receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide you still have made choice!

You can choose from phantom fears, and kindness that can kill,

I will choose a guide that's clear, I will choose free will!

There are those who think that they've been dealt a losing hand,

the cards are stacked against them, they were born in lotus land.

It's all preordained, a prisoner in chains, a victim of venomous fate.

Kicked in the face, you can pray for a place, in heaven's unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide you still have made choice!

You can choose from phantom fears, and kindness that can kill.

I will choose a guide that's clear, I will choose free will!

Good song.

And certainly the variety of religious thoughts they described do tend to get many of us into a lot of trouble. Even those of us not religious will tend to accept many religious tenets, half way, partly, a mix, a hodge-podge, blended with "folk wisdom" and common sense, working when things are fine - and failing us at the times we need it most.

But what is this Free Will of which they speak? How is that an answer?

Ultimately your free will is a matter of one single choice.

You may think, or you may not.

It is popular to think that if there is a reason for your choice, then it's not really free will. You were "caused" by some factor. But that there are reasons for your actions does not mean you didn't freely choose them.

How many times have you had different equally valid reasons for different choices? You can think further, or flip a coin, the free choice is yours.

I note that in history some men were allowed to choose different options and some slaves were not. So we coined the words "free will".

We now seem to have, in modern times, shifted the meaning, so that instead of Free Will meaning one is free to choose, now it is supposed to mean, "Choosing with no possible causal factor influencing you to any possible degree at all".

Well, if that is truly the definition, then no, there is no free will! I just don't agree with that definition, as it makes the whole thing moot. In what universe are there no causal factors to things? If "free will" must equal "no causation", then we'll need a new phrase to describe the original concept.

Now.

There is an argument usually put forth that since hereditary and environment are the only two things that say what we are, that we are wholly controlled by them.

That while we think we choose freely, any giant computer with all our genetic code and our life history in it, could predict what we would do.

Also, it's been noted that since all space/time is currently in existence...including the part ten years and ten eons from now that one standing outside of it could see what you were going to do, thus you have no free will.

This overlooks something. The fact that a computer, or a god, might be able to infer or see what you freely chose....changes not that you freely chose it.

Free will and determinism are not opposed. Both apply equally and in no contradiction. What you are going to do next is set in stone. You are freely going to choose to do it nonetheless!

Back to choices then...

You have a choice in life. As Ayn Rand put it John Galt's speech in "Atlas Shrugged":

"The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival - so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think'. A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions."

You are buffeted by inclinations, drives, instincts...even old habits...every day of your life. They all clamor for attention whenever there is any type of decision at all to make.

You may choose a "ready guide in some celestial voice", such as a god or goddess. You may also choose to leave it up to those inclinations and drives and etc. Which is still a choice of sorts, the default choice.

Or you may choose free will. To freely choose to think. To reason. Ultimately, with some study, to know - not everything, but enough. Your code of values. Your limits. Your do's and don't's.

To say this will aid you in life is an understatement. Even such codes and parameters as the "celestial voice" of various religions provide typically lets a man live a better, freer, more secure, and happier existence. Usually to the extent they let rationality in it.

Choose something. Add "free will" to it. Best of all, simply choose the "free will" and go from there. If religion is right, then "free will" will soon enough take you back to it. And in the meanwhile will have helped solve any number of your currently difficult problems.

It is not just accepting free will, you do have to work at it. But such work is never as bad as the anticipation, the work is doable, can be fun, and gets easier with practice.

When you do the work proper to your life, then it's that you will find that your life works!

Dean West

Emotional Blackmail

2005-02-01T23:39:00.000-08:00

In "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, one of the characters, Hank Reardon, has cheated on his wife. This after years of being trapped in a loveless and respect free marriage.

While his wife expresses much displeasure over this, he can't help but notice that she seems very pleased in an odd way. And she likes to bring it up in a manner that suggests he must atone for it. Over and over.

And in a manner that suggested that he needed to suffer for it. Over and over. All while overlooking any part she herself may have had in the situation.

Hank also realized something else, something very, very wrong in what was the secret power of her constant attempts to give him a "guilt trip".

On page 437, he sees the flaw in Lillian's attempt to punish him. He thinks, "She wanted to force upon him the suffering of dishonor - but his own sense of honor was her only weapon of enforcement."

He also thought, "What sort of code...required the victim's own virtue as the fuel to make it work?...a punishment, from which only the honest would suffer, while the dishonest would escape unhurt."

This is so true.

Do not misunderstand me. Breaking a marital vow is not a good thing, nor something that is "no big deal". Yet our culture so often and so exclusively focuses on one such aspect of the marriage, while ignoring so many more aspects. There are more ways of breaking vows then sleeping with another.

If a man/woman in an otherwise normal and happy marriage is of such a type as to go around sleeping with anything for the sake of pure physical pleasure, then this would generally be regarded as bad. He/she risks much of value, for some physical pleasure that could have been had in the marriage.

But. What of the same man/woman who's spouse has been routinely breaking other types of vows? I do not mean simply a one time foible, a raised voice, a burnt dinner, or other trivialities. Nor do I speak of problems and concerns in which the man/woman remains silent and seeks not a correction of the situation - then goes and uses the uncorrected situation as an excuse.

But what of the woman who's husband decides to pack on 80 more pounds and get lax in showering? Who squanders any extra money on cards and football pools, not flowers and fun? Who is out with the boys each evening, only stumbling in drunk at 1am for a place to sleep?

Is this woman condemned to either getting divorce and suffering in poverty with the no doubt 2.3 children? Or, if staying in the marriage for emminently practical reasons of financial/social survival, may she nonetheless have an evening here and there of blessed relief, of a reminder that human happiness is possible, and perhaps...maybe...even find someone more appropriate in so doing?

And the man...if the spouse decides sex is not a priority, well sure, "no means no", but that said, does it also mean that at the age of, say, 35, he is to say to himself, "Ahh, well, 'till death do us part', so I suppose I shall never ever have sex again at all for the next 40 or 50 years."?

In Hank Reardon's case, Lillian was a cold and frigid bitch who gracelessly "submitted" to any sexual desires he expressed to her. She'd lay there uncomplainingly while he had her. Out of the bedroom, she had nothing but contempt for his job, his ideals, his life.

Are these not all examples of marital betrayal?

For while no marriage vow says, "no football pools"....none of them say, "no casual sex" either. Rather, some things are just assumed. And while "no casual sex" is first and foremost assumed, I should think that upon reflection we would all agree that "no withdrawing love, respect, interest, etc. from the other" is also similarily assumed.

And in one spouse committing one betrayal.....well, if they have been duly advised, talked with, pleaded with, and argued with, all in an attempt to effect a needed change, and an end to that betrayal.....

Well....if they persist in it after all that, wherefore is their problem with the other joining them in another type of betrayal?

Yet this would all fall to the ground as pure sophistry, as pure unadulterated bullshit...were it not for the reaction of such a "first betraying" spouse to the sight of a "second betraying" spouse. For the reaction of spouse that betrayed long before an affair is much different then an innocent spouse's reaction...

For when the first spouse is truly believing in their own innocence, then it is uniformly a situation of displaying grief and anguish and surprise and pain. And desperate desire to know what went wrong. Rare is the innocent spouse's reaction that of anger or calmness.

Yet when the first spouse is perfectly well aware of the "first betrayal" that prompts the later and secondary sexual betrayal.....ahh, then it is so different!

Then you see the anger and then the "more in sorrow then anger". The immediate threats of divorce and disaster...unpursued, yet in the other's relief of it not being pursued it is not asked "why?"...Why unpursued if the sexual betrayal was so bad?

The innocent spouse who is sexually betrayed will have a certain long term reaction, too. One of fear and nervousness. An increased clinginess and attentiveness to the other is not uncommon. At the least there is a silent watchfulness, not as of one waiting and wishing to catch...but as one who is waiting and hoping not to be further hurt.

How to tell what an observed watchful state is?

The innocent one will not wish to speak of the subject. The guilty one will bring it up at random times. The innocent one would only ever reference it in a pained moment of fear and doubt. The guilty one would reference it in a manner designed to get the other to do something they don't want to do - in other words, lay a guilt trip on them.

Innocently wronged spouse: (timidly) "Will you be back soon? I made your favorite dinner..."

or: (softly) "I love you"

or: "I'd like to see if things can be better...is there something I did that hurt you?"

Spouse that drove other to adultery: (self righteously) "How long are you going to be? I wonder if you know how hard it is to sit and wonder what you are really doing...*holds out hand, palm out*...No, no, I know you are sorry, but you can't expect me to trust again so soon...."

or: (archly) "Working late, again?"

or: "You shouldn't blame me for doubting you. After all, you did betray me."

Innocence wants only to forget, guilt to keep bringing it up.

This is Emotional Blackmail.

And while it exists in a variety of forms of a variety of degrees, it is particularly odious in a marital situation. Because the person it is being done to is trapped by love or financial ties, or children or all of that and more.

You see it though, any time a person does something somewhat wrong, and the other, instead of just levying a punishment or out and out forgiving, wants to leave it in limbo and milk it for all it's worth....

Emotional Blackmail on friends doesn't work as well, for then the person being played can just walk away. Kind of hard to do that in marriage...if the person it's being done to cares for the marriage.

Which takes us back to Rand and her assertion that only if the victim is honest and good does it work. And that the victim should recognize this and take steps to correct things.

For if any person really believe that their spouse was an irresponsible, immoral cheating betrayer...they'd not give any grief to them for fear of all the other horrible things a true betrayer might do. Yet instead how often do we see a spouse pouring it on to the one who "stepped out", yet still assuming that the "cheater" won't do all the other things a truly bad person would do.

The bottom line is this. While any spouse who sleeps with another should be aware that any innocent spouse will be hurt and scared and betrayed....

That if their spouse was themself guilty of betrayal, then the fact of them driving you to it once does not give them some moral right to control you through guilt forever. Or for a day.

What it really gives is a golden opportunity for both spouses to wake up and see what, if anything, can be healed and fixed at the core of the relationship - at which time the surface level issues of lack of caring and respect and attention and love on one side....and lack of fidelity on the other side, can be mutually understood, forgiven and moved past.

That is a hard path, though. And it usually takes two to try, or one massive attempt by just one.

Dean West

"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short..."

2005-01-31T01:15:00.000-08:00

Let us compare and contrast Voluntarism (anarchy) and Government, or life in a "state of nature" versus life under the government.

In a state of nature, according to Hobbes, life would be, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." But was that truly the case? No. We are not a lone hunting species, but a tribal species. Man's life, according to Hobbes, would had to have been 75,000 years of misery, made better by the appearance of a King.

Man's life, in reality, was 75,000 years of tribal existence, then, approximately after agriculture was discovered, these few thousand years of supertribal, or governmental, existence. Which existence deserves the famous description of Hobbes more?

Solitary - In a state of nature, man is not solitary. He is surrounded by family and friends, his tribal group, up to 100 people or so. He knows everyone, and everyone knows him.

In a supertribal existence, man still has his family, but is also surrounded by many strangers. But he at least has his family. In our modern governmental times of the last 100 years, this family structure has been attacked by the government. In assuring aid for any who fall on hard times, they weaken family cohesiveness, for now, instead of putting up with certain foibles of your family (because you know they would be there for you in a pinch) you may tell them to go to hell, because your "Uncle" Sam will care for you.

In the government's indoctrination of youths, from age 5 to at least 16, all possible is done to disparage families. In the government's old age pensions they give excuse to not take in your aging relatives. In their inheritance taxes, they see to it that little is left for the next generation. In their divorce courts it seems calculated to hurt as many as possible.

All this makes for a solitary existence, which while there are more factors then purely governmental ones, it can at least be said that things were not solitary before the government came into being.

Poor - In a state of nature there are enormous technological and economic factors lacking to account for. But if we judge rich or poor on the basis of "How much of your effort is yours, how much is anothers?" which is all we really care about anyway, then they were far richer then we were.

Yes, they worked for the tribe. Every individual did. They didn't give a single thing not given back. For in this pre-governmental "family socialism", there weren't any non-workers to support. The one leader had his job as protector and dispute settler, and he actually did both of those things himself. Supertribal existence was the day we first started supporting "leaders" who did not do the job of protecting us, but rather commandeered many others to do it for them.

All of us give effort X in our lives. In their life, 100% of effort X was for their life's wants and needs. Anyone else their effort was for, and it was many, were making effort right back going to him. No one supported another, without that other supporting him. For every share of meat given to "the tribe", a share of berries is given back by other members.

In supertribal life, there is immediately a drop. For there is now at least one person who you must make effort for, who does not make effort back for you. For when you gave your tribal chief a preferred piece of meat that you worked for, you do get back from him his actual protection from danger. When you give your preferred piece of meat to a supertribal leader, or government, you get nothing back from him, except perhaps his assurance that if you are threatened, he will tell you and your son to go and protect yourselves.

From 100% of your labor being for you, it has at least dropped to 99%. More often, it dropped to 90%, as 10% was the traditional amount desired by our ancient gods and kings. 1 Samuel 8, KJV, has an excellent little essay describing this transition from full wealth to 9/10 wealth.

Nasty - it is doubtful they thought so. Humans judge their status on the basis of what they think as possible, not impossible. They didn't think of their lack of medicine, their infant mortality, their lower life expectancy, or their nomadic existence as "nasty", because their wasn't anything that they knew to let them think it could be different.

On the other hand, many of us know that all kinds of things would already have been possible without the government dragging all of us down with their enormous thefts and interferences. Not only can we intellectually be aware that we could have a far higher stand of living without them, but we even have books in which we can see how it might be, and have a more "emotional" awareness of the enormity of the "nastiness" we must endure for the sake of government.

Brutish - No. Even our most primitive tribes were way above an animals existence. And it is a sad, and much overlooked fact that most of what we think of as "barbaric tribal rituals" were done by supertribal governments, not ordinary tribes. Extended kin groups don't sacrifice a tenth of their young warriors. Supertribal ones do. People don't commit deliberately cruel barbarisms on their own relatives, only on strangers.

There were times which do to lack of economic resources, or lack of technology, that they "let" a person die rather then cure them. Or that they left an old person behind who could not keep up. But this was not for lack of a government. Having some non-workers laying about "leading" was not going to improve that situation. They did such things because they had no choice at that time.

With governments in place, we institutionalized cruelty to "others", and anything went, and usually did. Theft, torture, castration, human sacrifice, rape, beatings...all done to "others" as defined by the government.

Short - In the sense that their life expectancy was far less then ours, yes. But this was caused not by lack of government, but by lack of knowledge - both of hygeine and medical arts, and of ways to live without hunting fierce animals. If we measure length of life by how much of their life was theirs, and not anothers, then they lived longer back then, for 100% of 45 years beats 55% of 79 years.

For if the average man's taxes, fees, regulatory costs, etc. add up to 45%, then out of 79 years of life, he is living 35.55 years of it for his nonproductive masters, and 43.45 years for himself.

Hooray for government, after 6,000 years of progress - and a progress made in spite of them - they've seen to it we live a year and a half less!

Life in a state of nature then, or Voluntarism, was primitive due to lack of technological knowledge and a smaller economy, but fine for it's time. Life under a government, is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

As Dr. Jared Diamond pointed out in his bestseller, "Guns, Germs and Steel", man lived in an egalitarian fashion in the pre-agricultural days. Only when there was a lot of surplus food did we then see the rise of what he called "non-food producing specialists" - and "Kleptocrats".

Some such non-food producing specialists were artisans who traded their craft for food. Other specialists traded building or digging or carrying or tool making for food. Some even told stories for food, entertained, sang and danced for food. And some, the first priests, tried to explain the cosmos and our place in it for food.

All trading value for value, freely, and with no compulsion, so it is not to be thought that agriculture in itself is bad.

But these people...the Kleptocrats...traded something else for food. Not a positive value but a negative one. "You will give us food...and in exchange we will not destroy you and take it anyway."

Oh, they flowered it up, then as now. "I, as your King, will protect you from the nomads"...as he then sends the youth of the village out to die, while he sits in opulence. "I, as your President, will protect America from terrorists"...as he then sends the youth of the nation out to die, while he sits in opulence.

It may not seem that all I said about Hobbes, nature and government is true. It might be said, "Interesting points, I see how the tribes weren’t like Hobbes said, but our government’s not that bad, there’s plenty of people around who don’t feel sad."

True enough, most don’t feel that way. For if any accept the government as normal, and take them as they take hurricanes, storms or droughts, then they may be perfectly content.

It is those of us who understand a key difference that feel this anger, for it is we who understand that hurricanes, storms and droughts are natural, while governments are unnatural. They are force initiating machines who’s time of theoretical usefulness is long past, if it ever really was. A hurricane is nothing to be mad at, it has no sentience. Governments are things to be mad at, for all the information on their immorality and uselessness has existed for years, so that there can be no excuse for an individual government man to say "I did not know this was wrong."

In not studying the nature of the "job" he sought, he is evil or stupid. Evil if he knows, stupid if he doesn’t. But nicer terms like "ignorant" are only used when he had no opportunity to learn. But he had such an opportunity, as surely as I had - and it was his job to learn these things, to the extent he thought of it as a "job".

So we are angry at the government, for we know they are a man-made, and not a natural, disaster.

Dean West

Bible Politics

2005-01-30T15:34:00.000-08:00

The Old Testament, written by the Kritarchic Jews, and the Jews who had created a government and didn't like it, had much to say on how they felt about this new thing called "Civilization", with it's new things of Government and State Religion.

The Jews, being nomadic, were hunter/gatherers, the city dwellers were farmers.

Thus we learn of the Jews opinion of city dwellers in Genesis, where the first two sons, Cain and Abel, are making sacrifices to the Lord.

Abel, the good hunter, sacrifices an animal. Cain, the bad farmer, sacrifices grain. God rejects Cain's offering, and Cain, the farmer, kills Abel the hunter.

An easy myth to understand and make sense of, when you know that the City Dwellers had enough surplus food to support vast armies, which would kill the nomads.

We also learn in Genesis that men used to live longer...and do you know what? Men did live longer in pre-history, then in our City Dwelling stage.

For the diseases that wiped out so many women giving birth, and so many babies and children, and even many adults, came from the practice of raising animals, and having them housed in the persons own hut.

The writers of the Old Testament, looking at the death and rapid aging of their time, and comparing it to old times, would naturally note that the populace didn't live as long or as well.

Which would give rise to ever more exaggerated figures, until Methuselah is said to live for 900 plus years.

We also learn in Genesis, "Now there were giants in those days", which is the now city dwelling Jews refering to the times of their pre-King days.

Consider the agricultural economy of the city in those times. Diseases came from animals raised in homes, though few did this. It was enough that some did, the diseases would help stunt childrens growth, those that lived.

But another factor loomed large. The meat animals, being few, were for the King and his warriors. Not the peasants. Where before, all men ate meat, now only a few did. The rest of the populace ate grains.

Unsurprising then that they would be short, as are peoples today who don't get enough meat in their diet. Unsurprising that the tales would be handed down of "giants" in the old days...men little taller then myself, no doubt.

Note also that the leaders and warriors...meat eaters...were still tall. Goliath for example.

In Genesis we learn again of the Jews opinion of cities. They knew that much could be done with men living together like that, but also knew that the government would keep them from being free to live and worship as they pleased.

Their biblical flood is believed to have been sent for the sin of city dwelling. It is also believed that a proto civilization, pre-Sumerian, may have been destroyed this way. That would have made a big impression on the nomads who escaped.

After the flood, note that the next major city was supposed to be Babel, where a giant tower (to avoid floods) was to be erected. And God then said, "Now nothing will be restrained from them, that which they seek to do." True enough, for concentrations of humans always produce more inventions.

Note that the punishment was to set men to wander again in nomadic existence.

The next two big cities in Genesis? Yeah, Sodom and Gomorrah. Where the sin in the Jewish texts was NOT homosexuality, but communism, the Government mandated charity that Jews believed should come from the heart or God.

Destroyed.

Over and again, the Old Testament Jews wrote on how bad this new invention of cities were, mainly because those cities had two things the Jews hated - Government and State Religion.

Judges 21:25 shows the Jews free wheeling Kritarchic attitude. "In those days there were no kings in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes."

Later, 1 Samuel 8, when the Jews requested having a government for the first time, they were told, "And ye shall cry out in that day, for this king you have chosen"

End of Bible lesson!!

Hope it cleared up some odd things in the Bible. The Jews weren't quite as silly, myth wise, as some think.

It's just that the priests and ministers don't teach it right, or even know, that it was a political/social commentary, not a metaphysical explanation...

Dean West

Propaganda

2005-01-29T22:39:00.000-08:00

We have free will.

However, most do not choose to make a conscious effort to be unswayed by the variety of manipulative forces that abound in our society.

It starts out with the parents who send their children to public schools, where the kids not only get brainwashed...but moreso, they are trained to be "brainwashable".

Then there are the tv commercials, designed very carefully to have all the colors, movement, sex and death cues in them to put primates of our type in the best state for desiring their products.

Such commercials do not rely on that old "Eat Popcorn" being flashed on the movie screen....that is the standard example, and little used if at all.

No, the trick is to set up an emotional lack and suggest the product that will fill that void.

Then you have the actual tv shows...with many, many forms of propaganda. A favorite trick is to have two propaganda attacks in them, when obvious, one not.

With the dumb, they get both. The smarter will detect the first, relax, and get nailed...without knowing it...by the second.

The subtlety of say, Star Wars, provides an example.

The first layer of propaganda was the idea that mysticism is somehow real, that those good enough or strong enough can have magical powers - if they just have "faith". If you fell for that, great, but the people behind the people don't really care on that one, they put that one out to many other ways.

The second and core propaganda...and repeated endlessly....was this:

That the forces of evil are highly advanced, efficient, organized, technologically savvy and overwhelmingly powerful.

That the forces of good are backwards, inefficient, disorganized, primitive and can only succeed because they have a "magical assist" called "the Force".

Then since we all know that there is no "Force"....or none accessible....we go away subconsciously believing that large evil is irristable. So we had best submit. "You can't fight the Death Star...er, City Hall".

The movie/tv phenomena...and book phenomena...of Evil as Highly Intelligent and Efficient versus Good as having only "luck", "magic" or "god" to save them is so pervasive that it was even (accidentally?) mocked once in a Mel Brooks movie "Spaceballs".

Dark Helmut says, "Evil will always beat Good because good is dumb!"

Check out various books and shows, see if I speak truly on this. In all cases you'll find good only winning by luck, all the smart money is placed on evil everytime.

The reality is the opposite, as a few clearer sighted author's have shown. Ayn Rand was tired of all the Dystopia books where the future was portrayed as "A society of total logic with love outlawed".

She disagreed with the assessment of "Evil as Efficient" and wrote "Anthem" a future society that shows exactly what happens if evil has total control. It is not efficient. It is not logical.

The trains never ran on time in Mussolini's Italy, him saying so didn't make it true. Nor did they run on time in the Soviet Union...when they ran at all.

Only in a good and benevolent free market oriented society are things ever "efficient". Evil is destructive, and enslaving, and no intelligence or efficiency comes from such.

Besides schools and electonic media, there is the regular news, electronic and print. Choked with "fair and balanced" propaganda - thought Fox is only the most blatant.

The trick in all cases is to get past the surface propaganda, and down to the root. A slanted article in favor of Candidate B over Candidate A is not principally propaganda for Candidate B. The surface message of "Vote B", is just the surface.

More it is a reinforcer in the odd belief that if more people are on your side then another's, that you have the right to have your man enforce things on your neighbors that you would not have the right to do personally. The message is that "voting is good".

And even this has a deeper message, for voting is but one way of having a government, so in saying "Voting is good" as opposed to other means of running governments...they are also then saying that "Governments are good".

So...do I claim a conspiracy?

Nope.

Much of the propaganda is done by those who were themselves raised this way, and it just comes natural.

Propaganda does NOT need intent!

It is anything that will sway you, or reinforce some belief....for good or for bad.

The best way to avoid it, and thus preserve your free will in it's full use is to do the following:

1. Have a belief system already, fully known, fully believed in. This provides you with an "ideological immunity" lacking in those who are more wishy washy in their outlook.

2. Incessantly question what is being said, what it is supposed to mean, and what it really means. Is "Grace Under Fire" or "Roseanne" showing an empowered woman, or an embittered smart ass bitch? Are the two the same? Or not? Don't get mad at what you think I think.....what do YOU think? And why?

3. "Language and Action" by S.I. Hayakawa....should be required reading. It shows you how words are woven to create differing illusions...and realities....

4. Learn what a logical fallacy is. Learn how many of them there are. Learn to spot them in the media, schools, work and life in general.....for they are everywhere. If you are pleased in knowing what "ad hominem" means, know there are many more!

5. Sometimes a new thing is invented and worth buying. In general though, don't buy because you saw it advertised...just on general principle. If you hadn't felt the lack of a Ronco tomato slicer, then seeing one at two in the morning should not give you reason to call...no valid reason anyway.

It's not just a matter of "Questioning Everything". I advocate not the full skepticism of some annoying people. Know some core truths. Be skeptical only on the rest.

Dean West

Life Works!

2005-01-28T07:26:00.000-08:00

What is the point of my blog? Of any future website of mine? Of the consulting and counseling I do?

I wish to help people, I wish to make a difference, I want to share some of my ideas on how individuals, families, and just regular people can have more freedom and more happiness - without having to take on the whole damn planet to do so! The saddest thing I've noted about those who seek some thing better, who want more freedom, less pain, more leisure, less turmoil, more security, less random bad luck.....is that they always immediately start about things that will only make things worse.

For the commonality in all that they do is this: They focus on trying to change others. The ones that are "bothering" them. They need to know that those people will always be there, and will always do that, and that when those people stop, there will be more!

So I advocate not that they vote or change the government, or topple the system - tasks which usually do little but give false hope. Nor do I advocate that they retreat into the woods and live off roots and berries - a task in which they can't really hope to succeed, and wouldn't be happy in anyway. I want them to learn how to live an independent life. A life that is not dependent on what others are doing for their own happiness. A life that stresses focusing on Self, on Family and on Friends, and letting the World take care of the World.

In short, they should know that Life Works!

And that it is their own life they need to work on...

Besides those outside the home that hassle them, there are plenty in their own circle who do so, such as bad spouses, bad in-laws, bad relatives or bad friends. I advocate a withdrawal from relations with those who are not where you are or want to be. I advocate spending your emotional effort, your intellectual abilities, your spiritual goodness on those who are with you, not against you. On those who give back, not perpetually take. On those who share and respect a belief in your own fundamental beliefs - not identical thinking clones of you, but certainly not completely differing in spiritual outlook!

I advocate that a person solve themselves first before worrying as to others, and then only worry about those they have the right to - family and friends. There is much involved in this, it is hardly a philosophy of "giving up", and is a task that can keep a person pleasantly and productively occupied their whole life. I know, for I am still doing this for myself - !

Yes. For in learning of these things, I was able to find and identify where I was going wrong. Jobs I don't love, being with people I don't like, interacting with others I can't stand. I had to "solve myself" first, and when one is honest, they know it's not a process with a clear "end".

I am starting to be able to finally get my life to where I want it to be. A life that is not dependent on a government or corporation. A life where enough money can be brought in for the things that are needed, but not enough for every person on Earth to live off of me, or for a garage, basement and attic full of junk I'll never use. I want a secure and stable and comfortable existence in a home that is sufficient for comfort, in a job where I set my own hours and earn money by helping others, and a family situation in which the woman I'm with is the woman that I love and who loves me.

I don't have those things now, except for the house, which is very nice - and very mortgaged and draining. Unbelievably, and for the sake of one who doesn't give a damn about my ideals or dreams, I'm currently paying $1,260 every month just on the house - not counting any upkeep, maintenance or little things like utilities!

Yet I at least know where I wish to go. And that is in all the cases the hardest part of any journey, is just to know for sure and for true where it is you want to go. I don't think that any of the things that most people really want should cost so much in money or spirit. I think that most people trap themselves in debt - to banks financially or people spiritually - and must then be on a treadmill the rest of their lives trying to "reach the end" which is not there. Be that an overly expensive house or a spiritually draining spouse.

Jump off!

Or at least hit the button that slows the treadmill down, and start to think about how to safely step off the treadmill. Knowing you are on one, and desiring to hit that "slow down" button are the biggest obstacles to happiness mankind faces. I think that there are simple ways that people can reorganize things in their lives for a happier, more secure, more comfortable existence.

Nor is it as scary as a big, huge jump off that speeding treadmill, they are allowed to do so a bit at a time, as I am doing so a bit at atime. I also think though, that the main thing that holds them back is not being comfortable in themselves. Not having the confidence they need to start a new way of doing things - not a radical way, just a new and different way. They don't have the self-esteem to focus on what's really important which is themselves and their loved ones - their real loved ones, not those they feel some frustrating "duty" to, such as mooching cousins and mean mother-in-laws and spiritually distant spouses.

They lack the tools and knowledge and insight to know that these issues have come up before, and from the dawn of time, and that every time the answer has been given, others have moved in to pervert and corrupt that answer so as to put people back on the treadmill - for the enjoyment of those who like human pain, and who like to live off others.

There are a certain series of steps people can take, and which steps and in what manner they are taken, will vary for all, but there are certain similarities. As people are different, as everyone's happiness comes about in differing ways, there is no "sure fire" exact formula that if you simply do A, B, and C that you will be happy. Rather it is an individualized process of learning happiness, and security, and peace that will differ for each person, even while falling within certain parameters of "do's" and "don'ts".

While anything can be listed in general, people as individuals do need personalized instructions for how to escape from bad things, and even more importantly how to get to good things. A means of being able to find their way to a place where they aren't continuously reacting to the bad, but are instead able to be proactive at seeking the good.

This has been the point of my studies all my life - my studies from books, from traveling, from discussing and debating. This has been the point of many of my articles and letters and posts. This has been the point of my working on a consulting and counseling practice that helps people solve current problems - and moreso helps them learn how to avoid future ones.

I'm getting closer every day!

I'd like then to let everyone else out there know - none of the bad in your life really has to be that way. It can change, it can be better. That will come the day you really want it, and the day you decide to actively seek it.

I close then with a quote from Ayn Rand, a philosopher and author who is of great meaning to me. She was speaking of all those who have sought something better and brighter in their lives - those who have sought Atlantis. This is from page 755 of her book, "Atlas Shrugged":

"If you fail, as men have failed in their quest for a vision that should have been possible, yet has remained forever beyond their reach - if, like them, you come to think that one's highest values are not to be attained and one's greatest vision is not to be made real - don't damn this earth, as they did, don't damn existence.

You have seen the Atlantis they were seeking, it is here, it exists - but one must enter it naked and alone, with no rags from the falsehoods of centuries, with the purest clarity of mind - not an innocent heart, but that which is much rarer: an intransigent mind - as one's only possession and key.

You will not enter until you learn that you do not need to convince or to conquer the world. When you learn it, you will see that through all the years of your struggle, nothing had barred you from Atlantis and there were no chains to hold you, except the chains you were willing to wear. Through all those years, that which you most wished to win was waiting for you."

Dean West

Drugs

2005-01-27T10:47:00.000-08:00

There is a very good movie called, "Return to Paradise".

It's about these three friends who are vacationing in Indonesia and they all chip in on enough pot for all of them.

The long and short is that while two of them get back to America, one of them gets arrested, and since it's over the certain amount per person, faces the death penalty.

However....the government of Indonesia says that if the two friends in America come back, that instead of the one guy being put to death, they'll each do 10 years in prison instead.

Hmmm....neverminding what the two friends did....what would any of you do?

And related to this, I very much believe you should be aware of all the laws. Sure there should be no governments, no laws, but it so happens there are. Nothing wrong with breaking those laws...but one should be prepared for the consequences.

I used to enjoy a wild night of booze and cocaine, every six months or so (to keep from getting used to it, and have the full high each time.) I haven't done it in years though, mainly because our government is so anal on such things.

Same with crack. Once a year I liked to smoke it, but had to stop that, too. Jeez, just one night each year, but they'd throw you in prison for five to ten if caught.

Not fair.

Of course, it's not just the government that makes such things hard. It's sad to say but the ethics of many coke and crack dealers are not all they should be. On more then one occassion I've had to speak rather firmly to one of them about how if I wanted talcum powder, I'd have gone to Walgreens myself.

It gets so that if you aren't doing it there, then it's an almost sure bet you'll be ripped off. Getting home, settling down with friends, and finding that you've just bought $300 worth of baking soda pellets with a millismidge of crack is...unpleasant.

But if you and your friends do it at the dealers house, there's all those others to put up with. And they stink. And the police are always sniffing about collecting license plate numbers. And the offers are foul.

It all takes the fun out of it.

I respect the Asian nations that have opium dens, so that one can occasionally indulge in exotic pleasures in a safe, clean and comfortable environment.

The rich in Los Angeles have it good. You can do coke at the Beach Houses of the young and idle rich, and it's clean, comfortable, and no one tries to rob you while you're enjoying the high!

That was over 15 years ago though, and I've heard since that the government has been going after the rich too, so they can RICO themselves a new Beach House...I always find it sad when the rich get hurt.

It gives me comfort to think that it's at least possible to get away with living your life if you just bribe the right people. When that door is closed off, when the rich can't just do as they please, then any nation should know they are in trouble.

For anything they can do to the rich, they can easily do to you or I. Just even moreso.

Dean West

Emotional Vampires

2005-01-26T14:39:00.000-08:00

There are emotional vampires, and looters of material and spiritual values amongst us. And from the dawn of time.

They are those who cannot create...but can destroy. Those who cannot produce...but can take from those who can. Those who cannot think....but can trick those who do think many times and in many ways.

No good enterprise, even with the best of intentions, wholly avoids attracting such predators.

No religion ever came about, without some disgruntled farm boy figuring that talking to forty was easier then walking the back forty. No government was ever conceived without some thief or conman figuring that it would be better to make the law then break the law.

Any enterprise that shows potential of separating people from their money and productivity is fair game for them. Even charities, even companies. Any enterprise that has inherent in it, power and authority over others, attracts them the more...

Which is why you see so many representing God or Government.

Our society is well trained by our media, our movies, our schools and our parents to know of the existence of serial killers, pedophiles, rapists...and terrorists, of course.

We have no trouble at all in picturing and believing in these killers and destroyers of material and physical values (though rape is also spiritual).

Yet to suggest to anyone that killers of the spirit exist and walk amongst us raises eyebrows, gets people wondering if you are a conspiracy theorist, or just gets you dismissed as a kook.

Yet just as a pedophile may join the priesthood for no other reason then to sodomize children....so an emotional nihilist may join the clergy simply for his "joy" in perverting the gospel of that faith.

Just as some petty thief may become a bureaucrat so as to work little and get paid much....so a soul thief may get a job as a teacher for the "joy" of stunting year after year of young, trusting minds placed in his...or her...care.

Just as some sick and twisted men love to see the pain and desperation on a woman's face as he forces her to every indignity.....so some would become policeman to openly grin at the helpless fear of those people who see home and children removed from them for having a proscribed plant in their home. (Pot).

You cannot tell these...people...such as politicians or priests...by their looks. They usually look normal, not too bad looking, and usually not even too good looking.

You cannot tell these people by their demeanor, for there is no more friendly and warm a person to be around then a professional politician or priest. Their "job" regardless as to title, is to schmooze people. Just as you are good at building, or healing, or guarding, or hoeing, they are good at schmoozing...or they'd have been eased out, just as you'd have been for failing in your job.

You cannot tell these people by their stated intentions, by their claimed motives...for they are in enterprises that are in theory dedicated to lofty ideals. Striving to know and love a god/dess. Striving to serve and protect man. Striving to feed the poor.

What a chore for such as me to in any way point out the general type, let alone convince in a specific case! For such exist all up and down our society from National President to Net Poster, and whether their harm is Grandiose or Tiny, few can admit the existence of such types - few want to.

We all have felt the urge for the cleaner badness. A natural desire to lash out when angry. To yell or hit or kick in frustration. Usually we out grow this in youth, but we can at least remember it.

Few of us have ever been so malevolent as to feel the need to emotionally destroy another though. To be a nihilist. We know of envy...but we do not know of hating the good, simply because it is the good.

Since we cannot conceive of doing such things...we assume no other can either. Our fatal error.

So these vampires go undisturbed, for they are unnamed, unrecognized, unconceived of. And they continue to spread their pain, at all levels and in all arenas of our culture. A war here, a tax increase there, a subtly hate spun sermon there, a class raised to question their parents over there, a cutesy yet barbed post here.

But be it a the virtual crap you see floating around the forums, or policy changes that shape the course of history, it is all from those who feed upon the goodness and gullibility of others - as they diligently work to destroy it.

"Oh beware, my Lord, of jealousy, it is the green eyed monster that doth mock the flesh it feeds upon." said Iago, the very man who was the emotional vampire and anti-hero of Shakespeare's "Othello". Yet as brilliant as Shakespeare was, even he was not capable of recognizing that the traits he saw, and put into the character of Iago, was nothing so clean as "Jealousy", but was rather as Ayn Rand said, "A hatred of the good, for being the good."

Note in the play that Iago did not want the estates of Othello, nor Othello's woman Desdemona. He only wanted destruction - a destruction achieved by Othello failing to recognize or even conceive of, the existence of such a type as Iago was.

What is to be done?

Recognize the breed exists. That above all they do not wish you to do. For they are not in groups, they are usually lone skulkers. They being untrustworthy themselves, will never fully trust another, even of their own kind.

Learn to identify them. This is as simple as observing real consequences, not listening to forged motivations and intentions, and prettily packaged words. If it is pain and desolation being spread, then you may assume that it is not a perpetual accident. Few people accidentally kill. And fewer accidentally kill the spirit. Few mistakenly steal. And fewer mistakenly steal or destroy spiritual values.

Name them. They really hate this. I tell you now though, you'll hate it also. You'll be right, you'll know you are right, and so you'll tell those who are being harmed. And you'll be met with incredulity at best. More usually you'll be thought of as too angry, too sensitive, or just a kook. Of course the policeman was well intentioned when he accidently shot that minority boy. Of course the town councilman wasn't to know that the contractor with the same last name as his brother-in-law was going to rip off the city. Of course our President thought WMD were in Iraq. Of course a baptist minister didn't mean to overspeak himself. Of coures, MSN community posters who post hurtful pictures meant no harm.

But name them anyway...for you can see it bothers them.

Prove it. This is hard, but can be done to a certain extent by any of us. We are not compelled, we have not the duty, to expose all such creatures, all day, every day, for all of our lives. But little things can be done.

I would hope, that in this naming of a specific aspect of the battle, all good people who fight for justice and decency...can have an easier time in their battles, that they can see a bit more clearly, that they can thus be a bit more prepared, and a bit less puzzled at what might look in many cases to be inexplicable behavior on the part of these vampires.

Their behavior is inexplicable - were they simply human. That they are not lets it all neatly fall into place.

Man is said, by Aristotle himself, to be the "Rational Animal". There is nothing rational about pain inflicted for the sake of pain, for good destroyed simply for being good.

Thank you for reading this.

Dean West

The Unseen Dictatorship

2005-01-25T01:34:00.000-08:00

Governments have always had good reasons for why they are in power. Irrefutable reasons. Reasons that it would be treason, nay, madness, to even question. The next batch to over throw them has good reasons. Irrefutable reasons. Reasons that would be tre…you get the idea.

In all cases, the ideology has been but a smoke screen to justify their holding of power over us.
Appearances are everything, and people have to have their pride left intact. A good master must always see to it that the slaves have good reasons for not revolting, and good reasons for knowing that revolting is wrong. For all I've said in various articles on this blog can’t really be that bad, or our nation of freedom loving men and women would have risen as one and cried, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" But they haven’t done that. Why not?

Because they are cowards who know they would lose, so don’t even try.

But wait, that’s too harsh. These are prudent minded men and women, with responsibilities to family and community, who cannot rush off on some campaign likely to fail.

Is that better? It’s the same thing!

But, no, it’s not really the same thing. The words mean the same thing, the action - or lack of it - is the same. But one way lets a man sleep at night, the other gets him upset - and since no man likes to despise himself, he’ll usually get angry at the one who tells him instead - hence why people like me are branded as "kooks", "extremists" and "fanatics" so often. As the song Free Will by Rush says, "Blame is better to give then receive"!

Governments have always instinctually known of the need to phrase things right when exploiting their slaves. Divine Authority was the traditional one. Tradition itself was another. Will of the People is the modern favorite. It still all boils down to them exploiting us, for their life term, or their four year term - but a life term for us, regardless.

Calling things by different names is a good one. That’s why it’s never been "theft", but "donations", "shares", "taxes", etc. It’s also why it’s never been "Master", but always, "King", "Emperor", "President", "Premier", or my personal favorite for meaninglessness - "Secretary". We aren’t "slaves", but "citizens". I admire British honesty, they call their disposables "subjects".

But examine all this. Is the definition of Theft, in essence, "Taking something from someone against their will"? Then taxation is theft. Is the general definition of Master, "One who commands and you must obey or be hurt and/or killed"? Then our President and Congress are our Masters. Is not a Slave, "Someone who must work for another, against his will, and in exchange receive less then he would if he were free"? Then if your taxes add up to 25%, then you are a slave for 3 months a year, as surely as if you were on a Plantation.

Console yourself that your Master is "kinder and gentler" then Southern masters of old, and your cabin more comfortable, but know you are a slave nonetheless. If you wish to point out that you get to vote for your master - oh, please! The Electoral College does that, if the Supreme Court lets them. You get 1/280,000,000th of a say in who you would prefer to be your master, that is all. And that’s nothing. For you don’t get the only real freedom there is - to choose to have NO master.

Above all governments use ideologies or religions to maintain the charade that allows men to accept their chains, and allows tyrants to sleep easy. That "divine right" in the Western world was a part of a whole religion called Christianity that worked…"hand in chain mail glove"…with our masters. Obedience to temporal authority, rendering to Caesar, were consistent themes in Medieval sermons.

The Masters in the Soviet Union, and China and elsewhere, used Communism to justify their rule. Middle Eastern Masters use Islam. Etc.

But aren’t the masters sincere believers in the ideology? Not at all. For notice that in all of those nations, the biggest problem the governments have had came not from those slaves who disagreed with dominant ideology, but those who agreed with it!

The young priest who questioned whether Jesus really wanted the people to starve that the King might give his seventh mistress a mink coat. The church elders had more trouble with such types then any Satanist you can dream up - no one being silly enough to really admit to that back then.

Or the young communist who questioned whether Marx really intended the people to starve that the Commissar might give his seventh mistress a mink coat. The party leaders had more trouble with such types then any Capitalist you can dream up - no one being silly enough to really admit to that there.

You can see then, that in those oppressive systems, it was the best and brightest and most sincere who were the threat. Those who took the ideas seriously. Those who then noticed that the ideals instituted were not consistent with the master’s manipulations. Oddly, the first thing those governments do is offer to bring the idealist on board, with some kind of job or appointment where he can "help out".

But this is odd only until you realize that no matter what flavor ideology the government is, the bottom line goal is to still be a government. Inviting the wolf to become a guard dog of the sheep, is as old as the Bible, and our government guard dogs never fail to offer this to any sheep who shows his wolf potential. If accepted, the problem is solved. If rejected, the dogs may then fall upon the wolf and "kill" him - sometimes literally.

In our nation, our masters use the ideology of freedom to rule us. It’s really no more foolish of them to pick that one, then any other. For let me mention in passing, that any sincerely held ideology is going to have some nobility to it, else those prior well-meaning malcontents could not have seen the difference between good ideas and bad practices. Christianity did not dictate enslaving the Indians or Blacks. Communism did not dictate starving the workers. Both ideologies are false, but they were better then the masters made them to be in practice.

Our masters use the ideology of freedom to rule us simply because that’s the ideology that existed here. Ever since that ideology was adopted, our masters have had to pay it lip service. They’ve also had to make sure that we think that it still exists. The truly amazing part is how well they succeed.

They are aided by two things. One, Public Indoctrination Centers in which all children aged 5 to 16 must be turned over to the State for conditioning. You may know them as "schools". Don’t ever think that "Public Schools" are a failure, they are a staggering success, you just didn’t ask yourself what they were trying to succeed at. Hint: It’s not about teaching kids to read.

Two, we don’t like thinking we are slaves, so if we can hear an even halfway plausible sounding explanation for things that seem at odds with freedom - we’ll accept them for the sake of our self-esteem. The explanations come from Government Information Centers, called "networks" or "stations", that are overseen by the FCC, which controls who gets to broadcast. Do you see how pervasive is the practice of our masters calling bad things good names to get you to accept them? For the FCC really does control who broadcasts, and that obviously makes them the de facto owners of all TV and Radio stations.

But, aren’t we really free? It’s not really just our masters trying to pacify us, is it? Consider this:

Our government has regulated virtually every aspect of our lives. Buying, selling and trading are by permit, fees and licenses in advance, taxes paid on every transaction to the State (Business licenses and Sales Tax). You can travel as far as your feet can carry you, after that, go get your name and description registered ("Driver’s License" or State ID).

Want a job? Then get your work permit that we call a Social Security Card and fill out your W2 so the robbery of your income by the State can be all the more efficient. Sick? You may see any Doctor that the State approves of, and take any medicine that he prescribes - except that which the State disapproves of. In love? Get a license to wed, and if the State approves your partner you may.

How about just good old fashioned sex? You may do so in State approved ways, for instance, you may offer gifts to the woman in exchange for sex. But the State forbids offering money to the woman for sex - unless you let others watch, then the State approves and allows. (Don’t get that one? You can’t pay for sex…but you can hire a porn actress, film while you have sex with her, then sell the video - it’s a Constitutional right that the Supreme Court "granted" us.)

Are you a property "owner"? Then you know that everything not permitted by the State is forbidden.

Are you a parent? Make sure you license the birth, make sure you identify and register your child with the State (Social Security Number), or you will be robbed more by the State. So long as his/her education is State approved, so long as your disciplining is State approved, so long as your medical care for him/her is State approved, so long as your lifestyle is State approved, so long as you do all the State says, and let the State question your child alone as to whether that‘s true (heard of D.A.R.E.?)…then you may raise your child as you please!

I do not see how any can say we are "free". I suppose that some see that I write this, and say, "See, your free to write that!" True enough. I’m free to write it, and my masters are free to chuckle knowing that few who "graduate" their Indoctrination Centers are able to read it, let alone comprehend it. And is having some of any freedom, the same as being free? I care not for these "privileges" my masters indulge me in, it is nothing more then the King smiling benignly when the Court Jester pretends to spit on the floor at the sound of the King‘s name.

Of course I’m "free" to write this, our masters are even more advanced then Kings of old, and know they can afford to wait until I become a real nuisance. They don’t even have to file a report on this, they are big enough to ignore it until a "movement" grows enough to pop up on their radar. Kings never beheaded every peasant who spit upon hearing the King’s name.

Sufficient to kill only those who lead such peasants in spitting, and this little blog is a long way from making me that!

Imagine that this blog somehow became the talk of the nation! And I was on Oprah, who declared she was now an Anarchist because of my blog! And on every talk show I went on, the host declared for Anarchism, and the audiences were nothing but supportive and curious as to how to "join". Imagine that a nationwide movement swept across the land, with offices in every town helping spread the ideas I write in this blog.

You will note that in all of that I broke no law. You will further note that it is a given that I would be investigated, reports on me filed, wiretaps granted, agents assigned, any organization infiltrated. Tell me you doubt that, and you have more of an imagination then I had in the last paragraph!

The point of all this is for you to know that we live in a dictatorship. Of course it doesn't seem like one because we are lied to and deceived...and used to it. I can assure you that in 1938 the people of Germany were not walking around saying, "Woe are we, we live in Nazi Hell".

Do not let "ideologies" or "parties" or "votes" or "word labels" fool you. When you realize that the only difference between our nation and a dictatorship is in these word labels and ideologies, then you will be seeing much clearer.

And you will see that the nation that has black clad policemen conducting warrantless searches and holding people with no trial is a dictatorship.

Dean West

The Unkindest Cut

2005-01-24T01:14:00.000-08:00

There are six cats here that let us live here. The granddad, Scruffles, his son and daughter, Gizmo and Shadow, and three grandsons of Shadow, Chubbles, Schrodinger and Bartleby.

Scruffles and Gizmo were already fixed, and two days ago had to take in our three young boy kitties to get "fixed". So they would start spraying around or be naughty with the only female cat available.

*sighs*

"fixed" we say. What a euphemism. I always feel bad about this kind of thing. Consider: For three billion years life has been evolving on this planet, being born, growing, reproducing, over and over and over...

Through so many millions of changes, millions of generations, billions of years...

And for these three...and thus for mom, dad and grandad...no more. The end. Fini.

And then that whole "not have sex again thing".

And that whole "Ouch" thing.

I wish I had a farm, so they could be out door kitties. Then I'd just let them breed and have nature deal with it. But indoor kitties? What can I do?

Still feels like a betrayal though. Had they known where I was going to take them, I'm sure they would have fought...lol...not that they've ever had reason to fight or be upset in this household! So pampered they are!

That just makes it worse though, you know?

Ahh, well, in any case they seem recovering nicely...yet the sad part is that they purr when I pet them, as if they are grateful to me for giving them comfort after their ordeal.

Poor things can't conceptualize that it was I who put them through that. They're just too happy to be home and loved again. Guess that's good, but it still feels bad.

Dean West

My Net Romance

2005-01-23T15:18:00.000-08:00

A subject of some humor on the net is the thought of two people falling for each other on line. It usually prompts some amount of jokes of how one types with one hand, or if not that crude, then there is at least the contempt for such as would be so pathetic as to only find romance on the net.

The truth, as is usual in such cases, is often quite different then the perception.

Firstly, I should point out that for many of us, the net is our "club". In the old days, people's social lives revolved about Church, or Clubs, or even their Porch with neighbors stopping by. Few of us go to church regularly anymore - if at all. Fewer of us are members of the Elks or Masons, clubs once popular, now more an old folks home. Most of us have no porches.

Many still then choose bars or get togethers at the homes of friends. But a growing number of us do not like the bar scene, and do not choose our friends from amongst the small pool of those we work with.

We instead sit in our comfortable homes, where the music is not pounding your head into mush, and we can sip drinks that do not cost $5. And our friends are from net communities where only those who share at least some common interests are to be found.

Far from being losers, those of us who use the net as our primary social outlet are actually more finicky and fastidious in our relations then most. We enjoy being able to select from such a wide variety of communities our friends, and enjoy the freedom of being able to "come and go" as we please. We need not hem and haw and look at our watch and make excuses of it being late...we can simply click the mouse, and "leave" and be done with it.

Secondly, it is often heard, "It's just the net, it's not real life", which forgets that these are not the days of only few thousand well off nerds owned a computer. The number of people on line is in the hundreds of millions, and at any given moment there are more of us on line then there are people in most nations.

People go to school on the net, they work on the net, the talk and gab and share on the net. Political causes are waged and won and lost, religious revivals held, and spiritual solace given. Monies raised help refugees and orphans, help find cures for diseases, help build women's shelters, and any other charity you can think of.

Commerce as exploded, with people from the Bush Villages of Alaska to London to Beijing tapped out their orders and requests for goods and services, electronically requested, electronically paid for, electronically ordered, then dutifully shipped any where and any time.

No small amount of the world's total economy is conducted on the net, and it's no surprise that in any fictitious version of an armageddon written about or portrayed on TV, the collapse of our computer systems is a large common feature of any of the variety of disasters shown.

And people do meet on the net, romantically....and get involved, and arrange to talk on the phone, and arrange to meet. Some already have and have since had children. Think on that, there are human beings, alive today, who exist solely because of the internet!

I think it is safe to say that Net World is the Real World. When you can be born, be schooled, work, socialize, get your soul saved, find a partner, buy and sell and live and laugh...

And with webcams and audio headsets, it's almost as real as it comes, and if they ever get gloves that let us touch.....well, we'll then see phenomena to make what we currently call "net addiction" a pale shadow of what will exist then...!

But back to romance....

I am in a net romance. I did not expect it, and I would imagine that with the exception of those who head straight for the single's communities or the mail order bride services, that few do.

(and in an aside, while the two things mentioned, single communities and bride services, are not equivalent, I admire all those who know exactly what they wish for and head straight to it!)

I do not seek to address those situations though, for I find them to be little different then the classifieds that still carry "SWM seeking etc." ads even now.

No, net romance is different then those who come on line to use the computer as a tool for seeking a partner, valid as that is. The net romance I speak of is a love that blossoms between two people who met on the net, became friends, then still having never met physically, fall in love.

It is a surprise, but should not be a surprise. After all, many of us do live on the net, and are well acclimated to "knowing" a person only by their posts and articles. People speak of fake nics, yet few of us really into it have any trouble identifying our friend's posts, or even telling what kind of mood they are in by their writings in email, in chat, in the community postings.

So it is natural enough that such could go further, that the woman who is so precious and dear to me in her postings and emails could then become precious and dear to me in actuality.

In guessing that I cannot be too much different from others this has happened to, I would say that it is a new, novel and exciting experience for anyone. And in some ways superior to typical dating - in some ways, and yes, I'll get to the down side.

When Western Culture decriminalized and destigmatized pre-marital sex in the sixties, we lost quite a bit. Rather then a lengthy courtship phase in which we could get to know the other thoroughly, we now dive for the bed on the first night in most cases, by the third at latest for most of the rest of such cases.

In a net romance, neither needs to worry about whether it's just the sex, for double edged sword that this is, it at least cannot be said to be about the sex! It cannot be said to be about looks either, for even in cases where "pics" are available, they do little to show what a person really looks like. Pictures are always better as a reminder of a person, not the sum total of what we know of them.

In a net romance, trust is an enormous factor. There are crazy people out there, we all know this, and the giving out of phone numbers is always a risk. Especially for the woman, but even a man must wonder if when he does call...will it be a man answering? Not a problem if that is his thing, but for me that would have been an unpleasant surprise! Fortunately that was not the case!

In a net romance, things are rather exciting in some unusual ways. Not the least because from what I gather, most of such are between two people who are married...just not to each other. This makes perfect sense when you think about it though. Most single people looking for specific romance would be likely to be at those bars or get togethers off line. Or going to the singles communities on line, or even the foreign bride sites.

Leaving the unsatisified married men and women, those lonely or trapped in relationships, those who cannot plausibly be out in the evening, those with jealous spouses....to find each other on the regular net communities.

So the thrill of a secret life, the excitement of "e-whispered" plans and hopes and dreams is a strong factor in the excitement of such a relationship.

For such as are trapped in off line life, and experiencing an on line romance, things get better. There is someone they can talk to, someone they can share with, someone to give them what they so lack at home - a loving, a caring and a cherishing, that they had married to have - but then did not get, or at least do not have any more.

And for those who are not married, life was still lacking something, for feelings to orient so strongly over the computer.

The "good morning" emails, the evening calls, the posts with cute little heart emoticons, the joint projects engaged in, it is all so nice, so sweet, so comforting and so affirming of one's worth. And to those of us in the desert of a loveless marriage or empty apartment, one can easily get drunk on such a spring of love and affection.

Are there down sides? Yes, and most abundantly, though there are to off line relations as well.

There is no touching. I cannot speak for all, but for Cathy and myself, there has been no cyber sex. This is not to say there has never been "actioned" sentences of what one would wish to do, from a hug to a kiss to a hand holding. Nor does it mean that there's never been little flirtations or more desirous thoughts expressed.

But I think that most mature adults who meet on line do not actually engage in the type of "one handed chats" that we all joke of. Nor are known for doing that on the phone. For most couples, I think that the main touch missed is not sexual, so much as routine affection that we take so much for granted that we only notice it's absence.

I would like to hold Cathy's hand. I would like to give her a hug. I would like to brush the hair away from her face and give her a soft kiss. Yes, I should like to do a great many things, but it is those types of things that I find I wish and "miss" most, though I've sadly never had them to miss.

Another downside is the unknowns of it all. It is heavily about trust, not only in the other, but in life itself. I know I can trust her, and she knows she can trust me, but can we trust life? For as real as the net is, it is different from face to face "real" life. Will we click when we meet? Will we feel the same way we do now after we meet?

There are few guarantees on such things, and what can seem right on the screen may not seem right face to face. We all know how that can go from friends who have been in such a situation. People in "real" life tend to put on their "best face", their "best appearance" in the initial phases of a relationship, so that faults are hidden, flaws glossed over - how much more of this phenomena may exist when we only see the "face" sent over the net?

One may notice in a date at a restaurant or movie some unguarded moment in which some flaw is displayed, but on the net each post, each email, can be lovingly crafted into a work of art, without flaw, carefully revised and deleted and added to, so as to make the sender look his or her best. It is hard then for anyone to meet up to the expectations that can form over the net.

The witty and urbane net poster may be a stuttering fool. The charmingly adorable lady on the net may be a gum chewing ignoramus. Both may smell!

However, I find the downsides to be not quantitatively different from "real" life dating, but only qualitatively different. These problems listed are not more then "real" life, only different. They can be dealt with by good hearted and reasonably intelligent people who find themselves in these wonderful and scary situations.

I think in a net relationship, you should know the others history - primarily that he/she has one, and is not just some random predator who just came on line. In my own case and Cathy's, we've been on the net forever, and so we each knew the other was not just some random troll. Obviously you will be friends first, and get along that way. If you don't get along that way, there's little hope, but then, you'd probably not have fallen for each other.

The phone call...this is a must before any meeting. Typically, I should think that the guy should give his number to the woman. We may speak of gender equality, yet more guys are likely to be psycho then girls. The woman can then call the number and have some chance of assessing things before it goes on to the stage of a mutual number exchange. Not to say that it can't be the other way. Many of us are well familiar with who is who on the net, and neither Cathy or I had any problems in simply exchanging our numbers.

I should think there should always be more then one phone call! Do NOT rush! This will be hard enough as it is, let me be mom and dad and say to you, "If it's real, it will wait!". You do not need to meet instantly, and may well be disappointed if you do. Remember, by emails and posts, you have only ever "heard" very structured, very artistically done writings, they may not be indicative of who they are.

Phone calls give much opportunity for hearing and learning more about them. Not just in what they are telling you information-wise, but in how they say it. Do you like his/her voice? Are they stuttering about as if they can't keep track of what they've said before? Is the Shakespeare on the net the stumbler on the phone? If the calls don't go well, expect not any meeting to.

Having said not to rush, the other problem is not to wait too long. Humans get involved with each other, the inclination in such things is move up and up and up with it, not stopping until it is at a level where it is found to be not right. So long as it goes well, people wish a greater and greater intimacy.

For there to be no meeting would keep you at one level of a high, with no chance of getting to the next level. Emotions and feelings would build overwhelmingly. The lack of release in a meeting (no, not sex, though that would be an aspect) would be harmful to each...and inevitably harmful to the relationship.

At some point there must be such a meeting, yet such should be conducted with great care. Meeting in a public place. A friend having info about who you are meeting, when and where. I should think if anyone had a problem with such precautions that would be a bad thing.

So when is the right time?

That is hard to say. Is this for a fling or an exploration of a new level of your relationship, one that might be made more permanent? If a fling, meet whenever, have fun! If more, then some emotional caution is needful. Such as this: Are you each really getting divorced? For there could be little sadder then one thinking "long term" and the other thinking "fling".

I should think that before such a meeting, you would need to know that each was actually getting a divorce, and most importantly for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with either of you! For if you are truly leaving your spouse for a voice on the other end of the phone, no matter how right it seems, you are a fool!

But if the marriage is dead already, and the divorce was definitly going to be, then by all means, file the papers as you would have anyway, then seek what might be waiting for you in that meeting. I would not say that you must definitively file first before such a meeting...but it certainly should be an imminent thing.

Net time is faster time, we learn so much so fast. But I would still think it would be risky to meet in under six months for lack of knowledge of how someone is over time. And waiting longer then a year would be all but impossible. These figures are not carved into stone, but would serve in general.

Take them as parameters, for there is some min/max period in which you must know them at least this long to be comfortable, but not so long as to have frustrated passions turn simply into frustration.

Open discussion on this is the best course.

Open discussion, by phone, is the best course on everything. Share how you feel, share what you wish, share what you need, share what you hope. Things are hard in such cases, each person is talking into a vacuum, a great void with only a voice at the other end. Such can be eased with pics of each other, with descriptions of the homes, with photos of the homes, with cards and letters and gifts mailed to make the other "more real".

All these things should be done, and you can maintain security by the rental of a post office box. Such things as these are important, and all but essential in a net romance.

But ultimately you are still speaking into a phone to a person you've not touched or seen in life, and all the reassurance you can give and receive is not a bit too much. Be clear in all you want and need, be clear in all you fear and dislike, leave nothing to chance. This does not mean do this all at once, but such should be covered over the course of time.

Live your life while this is occurring. And share it with him/her. Make them a part of it as possible. The gossip, the chores, the work, the news. Without touching and seeing, you need to be as "real" as possible to the other.

Do have fun with her/him, do not just have endless emails. You will need to work on projects, on line ones, obviously. You can do other things as well, such as telephone dates where you each rent the same movie and watch it together. If you do not do things in common, you'll have no common experiences to refer to. So regardless as to how silly...and no one in love actually thinks such things are silly!...do something!

Where does it all lead?

Well, like in off line life, you just don't know, but so long as there is honesty and kindness, all will be well - just as in off line life!

Sorry for no political rants or such today. I just wanted to share my thoughts on all this.

Dean West

The Secret Circle of Hell

2005-01-22T15:18:00.000-08:00

When Dante wrote his famous book, "Inferno" he described the various rings and levels of Hell, each getting worse, for the worse crimes.

Until finally you got to the innermost part, Traitor's Hell.

What is little known is that there was a deeper level to hell....one to scary for him to speak of.

It's reserved for those mindless and soulless damned ones who abandoned kittens to the elements.....

In some of the SciFi books of GrandMaster Robert A. Heinlein, he advocated the Death Penalty for such, but only if the Death had plenty of pain and anguish first.

I'd have to agree.

Even...though I don't like to think of it, and have never done it....taking a kitty to the pound for euthanizing....would be better then abandonment.

But as far as I'm concerned, there an easy enough expense till finding a real home, and there are such things as "no kill" shelters that will place them, in some of the big cities.

Kitties think they are little people. What hell it must be for them to be abandoned. What a sense of loss they must feel, what fear at not knowing what they did bad, not knowing how to survive, looking for a food bowl that doesn't exist, hoping for a leg to strop up against and getting only a boot.

Twice in my life I've come across the recently abandoned who were so happy to see me. They purred all raggedy like it was an effort, but one they'd make if they could just have a little milk, food and loving.

Once I came across one that had abandoned longer. He was just a little one, not more then two or three months old. He was under an abandoned pick up truck at a truck stop in Atlanta, Il. We think he might have been trying to drink the puddle from the radiator, not good. We took him home...he had so many fleas, but was too tired to resist much us washing him and picking them off of him.

But...he was too far gone, too weak. The flea soap...well, the vet said that soap should have been okay, but in his weakened condition was the final straw. He said he probably would have died anyway.

We gave him the antidote shot for three days. He did at least purr some, and tried to wash me a little. But he just finally quivered once more, then died. I wish I knew who abandoned him.

THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE FOR ABANDONING CATS OR DOGS.

Dean West

Competitiveness

2005-01-21T01:47:00.000-08:00

There is a good blog from England called, "Sometimes it's peace" by a woman named Gill. She is an intelligent young woman who homeschools her children and posts good articles on a variety of topics, but is a great source of knowledge on these homeschool issues.

She has noted in a topic called, "Competitiveness", that children do not seem to be as competitive in the homeschool environment as they are in the public school systems. This does not surprise me.

By nature, we are a species that is cooperative. We had to cooperate in the procurement of food, in the coordination of the hunt, in defending ourselves, etc. It has been noted that if we had not developed some high degree of innate cooperativeness, we'd scarcely have survived.

But what of competition? That is as innate, is it not?

Yes and no. Yes, we enjoy competing for status within a given tribe/extended kin group, but no, we do not naturally compete at such levels as are seen in the school fights, the bullying, the shoot outs, etc. There is an enormous difference.

Within a tribal or family sized unit, the competition for status is slight compared to what we are used to elsewhere. We know, and understand, and love, and respect the other members - at the least far more then the random strangers to be encountered in schools or work.

"Competition" is thus present, but restrained. Civilized. Human. Everyone pretty much knows who is who any way, there is little to prove. And there is typically a head of tribe, head of household, who can arbitrate any disputes, and lay down the law as to what is what, in any situation that threatens to grow larger.

So the very system that has less competition, the tribe/family, also has better conflict resolution, as there is usually a clearly defined, recognized and respected authority figure there. Compared to public schools, which while they have more competition, have less conflict resolution as there is no credible figure to do this for them. A parent in the home is worth a committee in the office.

Why are homeschool kids less "competitive"? They are being raised more naturally, they are around only those who wish to help, and nurture and love. It should not surprise people that this should be - for what if we raise one cat with love and pettings, and another cat in a cage for 2 years with random torment? Which will be happy, which sad? Which will feel safe and loved, which caged and abused? Which will know happiness and peace, which will be twitchy and fearful?

When you put your children in the cage of public schools, you are taking them away from what is normal, from what is natural, from what was bred into us to be used to. You take them away from those who know, understand and love them the most...and put them in a cage with those who care for them the least.

Bullies. Teasers. Liars. Cheaters. And these are just those on the staff of the public school, the kids from broken homes, idiot mothers, brutal fathers, endless "uncles", mean step dads...are all there, too.

Your kids will be caged, they will be picked on and abused, they will have their minds brainwashed and messed with, while they're bodies are jostled, pinched or hit at random and unpredictable times, and even the most popular of kids suffer this. From books knocked out of hands, to lunch money stolen, it's a fate that does not simply befall nerds, but befalls all now and then, so that a constant state of watchful nervousness must be cultivated in varying degrees by all students.

This makes them edgy, this makes seeking status more important, this makes establishing dominance more then a game, it makes it needful for what a young child perceives as a "survival issue" even while not having the words to call it that.

Some will be more thoroughly physically abused by other students. Some will be sexually teased and abused by fellow students and even teachers.

The sexual harassment routinely dealt out to any girl who's reached puberty, by the male students, is such that were she an adult, she could retire off of the settlements from lawsuits. She must suffer in silence instead.

The physical violence and harassment routinely visited on boys of all ages by other boys is such that if they were adults, they'd similarily be able to retire from all the settlements from lawsuits. He must suffer in silence instead.

Sadly, both boy and girl will soon learn to take it as normal...to take fear and pain as routines of human existence. By the time they graduate they will be used to it in such an intrinsic way that it will not even be thought of by them. Pain and fear will be taken as normal, and be simply that background emotion that colors many of our own lives in varying ways.

The mom and dad who think kids will risk "losing status" by reporting such things are living in a fool's paradise - while the kids are living in hell. Kids will NOT speak to their parents of these things, and when one does, know there is so much more not said. Know also this: Imagine how you would feel about the spouse who deliberately sent you into a situation in which the harm to you was a certainty, yet the spouse did it with the excuse of, "But I have a good rapport with my spouse, I ask her if the guys at the honky tonk bar pinch her ass, and so far she says none have...."

What a joke to send a child into known danger, to know in advance that they are as unlikely to report to you as you were to report to your parents. And if they come home and report, will you then remove them? Or find yet another reason for them to submit to pain and fear? Will you assume that you can change a system that has not changed for two hundred years? Or just let them stay home and be loved, hard as that may be?

We send them to a cage where they must compete or emotionally die, and we wonder at the touchy sulleness of our teens, the resentments, the angers, the "competitiveness" that flairs up at the slightest encounter with any casual authority - can I be the only one who sees that the behavior of Public School children and prisoners and soldiers are identical?

And note I said, "casual" authority - for kids, prisoners and soldiers are always nothing but polite to brutal and absolute authority...the competitiveness experienced has taught them well, that you fight for every status point you can get, but surrender instantly in the face of overwhelming force.

Funny how convenient this result is for any government who so benevolently provides us this "service".

All kids will also recieve the emotional abuse, and the intellectual abuse, that is common to ALL schools, whether it's one in the ghetto or the suburbs. Any review of the declining literacy stats will show that. As will the stats on the increase in those who need therapy and counseling.

What of the homeschooled kids lucky enough to have Gill? They aren't in a cage, and thus have nothing to get used to. They do not learn to accept fear and pain as natural. They don't have the sullenness that other teens develop. My sons didn't.

I suppose this is where some would say that, "Well, if they don't learn to compete..." Shut up. Just shut up. For one, if torture is the only way they can learn, then I'd rather them be ignorant of competition - and all else. Knowledge is to lead to happiness, not cost all hope of it.

For two...it is a lie. My eldest son was a soldier in the U.S. Army. He fought in Iraq. The lack of "competitiveness" and torture in his homeschooled environment didn't keep him from competing in the world of men. My youngest has only just turned 18, yet has worked for over a year now, and has just finished putting in a round of applications for a better job. Looks like he knows how to compete as well.

There is a difference between the healthy competition for status in a loving circle of family and friends, versus vicious competition to preserve body, mind and soul that is to be found in our government's indoctrination centers.

It's time people became more aware on this issue, and realized that four hours a day of homeschooling is scarcely burdensome - and to those that it may well be difficult for, I would say only that so long as the kids can read and write and do arithmetic, they could well afford to learn little else.

Certainly given a choice between them being a neurotic who knows when the Battle of Hastings was fought, versus healthy and unafraid young adults who don't know that "important" bit of data...well, really, which would you prefer?

Keep them home. Let them learn love.

Dean West

(Special thanks to Gill for giving me the idea for doing this "mirror article" to her own, if any would like to see hers, please click here: Competitiveness )

Not A Good Thing

2005-01-20T03:21:00.000-08:00

Have you all noted the spectacle of the media choking back it's laughter and merriment about the imprisonment of Martha Stewart?

Here is a woman who has expended an enormous amount of her genius, her skills, her time and her effort...all to the purpose of making life better, happier, more pretty for tens of millions of people.

Ahh, but she actually charged a fair price for her time and creativity, and so much creativity and time did she have in excess of the norm, that her rewards were far in excess of the norm - is that her crime? That she was worth more then some?

Or put more accurately, that the buying public, all who had free choice, found her efforts worth more then other's efforts?

But what actual crime was she accused of? Insider trading, an insult to all intelligence and common sense, and an unfair law that violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - Free Speech.

Ever wonder what Insider Trading is? Well, when you own stock in a company, and you, the janitor for that company, over hear that the company is going belly up tomorrow, then you selling out today is Insider Trading. Tell your grandma to sell, and you are now guilty of conspiracy, to boot.

No matter how you dress it up, all insider trading is just people acting in their self-interest, when they receive information that is not available to all.

Yet all who enter the stock market know in advance that some people will always have info that they don't have. Thus the game of the S.E.C.'s selective enforcing criterion. Which is a secret, for of course, they deny having that.

But note, you don't see every C.E.O. in America behind bars, though obviously they have all bought and sold on the basis of info that you didn't have.

But was Martha Stewart convicted of this bogus crime?

Nope.

She was convicted of lying about a crime she was found innocent of committing!! In what has to be the stupidest verdict since the case where a man was found Guilty of bribing the Mayor who was found Not Guilty of accepting a bribe!

It would indeed be a humorous joke...were it not that this woman, who has harmed not a soul on Earth, is still in prison.

She who helped a housewife in Akron feel better about how her house looks, who assisted a man in Peoria in the finding of a nice gift, who aided a woman in Santa Fe in the decoration of her apartment, who entertained for an hour the guy in Boulder who was flipping through the channels...and one hundred million other examples of help, aid, assistance, for all of us who now sit vapidly in front of the tv...

...to listen to the jokes and comments about her cell, her jail, her new clothes...

Hello! Am I Pontius Pilate addressing the Jewish Sanhedrin here? For I feel I should be crying out as he did, "This woman has done no wrong!"...

...while the media yells the louder, "Crucify her!"

What a world. What a system. Neil Bush and the S&L crimes - not even arrested...but Martha Stewart gets bent over a table for a very thorough search...before having her freedom stripped from her...

Is it safe to say that there is no justice in this once great nation?

Damn our government for doing this, and damn our media for not sticking up for her!

And damn us...for what are any of us doing about it?

This...is not a good thing.

Dean West

Wife Beaters

2005-01-19T01:15:00.000-08:00

Which is worse, for the man to hit...or to condemn?

Best for him to do neither, but him hitting has one advantage...at least the woman knows she's being abused. At least she knows she's a victim.

Not always so with the emotional abuse.

What counts as emotional abuse, a "condemning", a verbal "hit"?

Well...what of these comments/questions from a man...

1. Do you think you could do better me? I'm telling you, you couldn't.

2. God, are you eating again? I'm embarrassed to be out with you.

3. You are so stupid, you know that? Be glad I'm here to take care of you, no one else would be crazy enough to.

4. What would you do without me? Go back to that shit heap I found you in? Welfare like that tramp sister of yours?

5. I'm going to leave you.

Everyone getting the gist? Such "comments" are for little other purpose then to destabilize the woman's soul. To batter it into submission. They can even be phrased...sickly enough..."out of love"...

1. You worry me, with how many stupid mistakes you make.

2. I am only concerned about your weight because I love you...most men wouldn't care, they'd just dump you.

3. Who would have a woman your age? I just want to take care of you - no one else would.

Etc.

Why is this done? So that when the woman's self-esteem is pushed far enough down, she'll be dependent on him. The man who assures her of her valuelessness is the man who needs her the most, and tries to keep her by making her fearful to have confidence and self esteem.

Such attacks should be resisted...as vigorously, and with as much strength as you can muster...for it is not your body, but your soul being attacked.

Do all men mean it as an attack? Maybe he was "just saying". Uh-huh. Then "just say" back that your soul, your self-esteem, your "you" are not to be attacked. You can even say it nicely...the first time. Perhaps the second time...assuming he is learning.

Past that? Hmmm...heard of co-dependency? Think it only applies to those who come to need a "slap" to know he cares?

Such complaints women have over a .21 cent pay differential between men and women at work, what fire they have in addressing their boss...yet..such freight train loads of crap women swallow at home from the man who is supposed to love and nurture, protect and support them.

Your boss is your boss...who cares what he wants to pay? What the hell does he owe you? Ahhh... but your husband...you are to be his life...not his dog to emotionally kick when all the bigger boys at work or elsewhere give him grief that he feels not man enough to stand up to or correct.

You aren't his punching bag, glad that most all of you seem to know that part.

But you've heard those stories of the two men drowning...and one who is sinking reaches up to the one who is not...grabs their legs...then hauls himself up...climbs all over them...stands on their shoulders...that the healthy one will die underwater, that the weaker, more cowardly one might have a few minutes more of life?

You aren't his emotional life ring either...so that he can rise up at the cost of pushing you down, so that he can climb the hell over your own sense of self, and push you down into the depths of despair so that he can fake his own self-esteem a few minutes longer.

The only response the coward at sea deserves is a kick from the man being attacked, and to be swam away from. The only response your husbands who try that is the same. Kick free and swim away.

Hope that helps someone out there. God knows there's some who need to hear it.

Dean West