At a loss for words... almost

I just found out that someone I know, who has admitted to me that she used a guy to get pregnant (and then ditched him long before the baby was even born), has been getting "child support" from him. To me that is about the same depth of wrongness as robbing a guy in a parking lot.

As wrong as I feel it was for her to use him to get pregnant (without his informed consent) in the first place, that was small potatoes to then turning around and robbing him. I just can't see this in any other light.

Maybe in a few isolated cases "child support" is justified. In a case like this- no way.

OK, so that is just my opinion, but it sure made my estimation of the person's character crash through the floor. No, this person makes no pretense of being a libertarian, but sometimes I am still shocked at how low non-libertarians can stoop.

.

Homeschooling Rocks (and unschooling is even more awesome!)

Here's another one of those infographics/ads. This one didn't ask me to post it, but I have seen it a couple of different places and I really like it.. so:


Created by: College At Home

People change out of self interest

People change out of self interest

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 24, 2012)

I can't imagine how anyone could be considered to be different in any way that matters- better or worse- just through an accident of birth. No one chooses their skin color or which government claims the territory where they were born. To use either of those to evaluate anyone is absurd, as is the act of judging someone based upon the language they speak. Those things don't figure into inalienable human rights in the least way.

Notice that even those who wrote the Constitution never made the claim that the rights enumerated therein were contingent upon being a citizen of America. They were human rights. They exist in every human the world over just by virtue of being born human. These identical rights exist whether the local government respects them or violates them.

Putting up artificial barriers between yourself and others you consider to be different only hurts you. When you act as though it is "us against them" it makes people defensive. When you demand they change to be what you want, they will usually dig in their heels and refuse. You would do the same.

There are legitimate yardsticks you can use to judge others, if you want to do that. I have no objection to judging people based upon their actions. If they steal or attack the innocent they are not my friend no matter what other traits they may have in common with me. The behavior matters; nothing else does.

Of course, one of the inalienable rights all humans share is the right to associate only with those of your own choosing- at least on your own property. For any reason or no reason at all. You can also hate anyone for any reason, as long as you don't act on that hatred by violating the other person's rights. To make "laws" to the contrary may be well-intentioned, but it doesn't work out well because of the resistance to a "demanded change", as mentioned above.

A better way is to let people do business with whomever they wish, including allowing them to expose themselves as narrow-minded bigots if that is what they want to do. After all, you then have the right to shun them, too. And by eliminating a segment of their potential acquaintances they are hurting themselves and opening up opportunities for the rest of us to step in with welcoming arms. In the long run, self-interest will change more people than anything else.


.

May I draw your attention to- Abortion Wars!

No, it seriously isn't as bad as all that.

If you enjoy "The Abortion Debate", you might find the comments on this post ... "interes-taining".

I never intended that particular post to become the focus of so many comments; I actually thought it was rather trivial- a "throw away".

After all, there have been so many other posts on that topic that I thought had more to say. Whatever.

Read the comment exchange and decide if I am full of ... "it", or if I addressed the points adequately. Anyway, I would like to thank "itor" for the engaging debate, even if we are not going to convince each other of anything. At least it keeps me thinking.

.

Relax and enjoy

I must be an odd character.

A couple of nights ago, after coming home from a long, hard day, there was a party going on a few houses away. Loud bass thumps, and loud singing. In Spanish. It was happy, bouncy music with an exotic feel. It made me feel good.

My daughter's mom, on the other hand, immediately started wondering aloud why no one had called the cops on them yet. Not that she was considering it, but that was still her first thought. It had not occurred to me that anyone would react to the party sounds like that. Until she brought it up.

There have been other things like that. If someone does something that annoys me (yes, it is very possible), I don't think of calling the cops or shoving the "law" in their face. I either speak to them myself, or I "suck it up" and realize this is part of living in town, and deal with it however I can. If it is an actual, credible threat, then I might take matters into my own hands.

Anyway, that evening I ended up sitting out in the yard enjoying the music for a while. I think others might benefit from relaxing, and just enjoying the moment, too.

.

Trayvon Martin killing

I don't know- I wasn't there.

There have been times I felt threatened by a person I assumed to be "un-armed" (but you can never be positive of that point, can you?). Had that person made a furtive move, I might have shot them. That's not the time for hesitation if you suspect your life is at risk.

I haven't read a lot about the case because everything seems so hyperbolic. But, regardless of anything I might read I wasn't there. Maybe it was murder, maybe it was a reaction to a credible perceived threat. Anything more I might say would be speculation and assumption.

.

Did you feel the globe warming?

So, NASA has announced that the recent solar storms heated up Earth's upper atmosphere with enough energy to power every home in New York City for 2 years. Put in perspective, that's not a lot compared to the amount of heat released/reflected by the planet daily, and supposedly none of that added heat reached us down here on the surface, but still...

The real Climate Deniers claim that human-released CO2 is a larger factor in the heating of the planet than the sun?

I read a lot of skeptical sciency stuff. Even the "mostly libertarian" Michael Shermer speaks as if Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a simple, proved fact- to be accepted now without the slightest bit of skepticism or doubt. No questions allowed.

He doesn't know that. Neither do I. But I am still open to new information either way. And, no matter what, I know "global warming" doesn't trump property rights.

.

Does "noon" make you seasick?

Yeah, this has nothing to do with anything, but for some reason I worked on this a lot yesterday.

The thing is, I still think about how bizarre "daylight savings time", and the government's encouragement that we follow it, is. (Lest you think otherwise, I have no problem with "standardized" time zones. It's the intentional screwing up of those time zones that bewilders and frustrates me.) I've mostly gotten adjusted, but I can't help feeling that the clock is very wrong when I look at it. Which brings discomfort, which spurs me to action.

Then, I do things like watch the sky to see when the sun is actually at its zenith and discover it's even worse than I thought. The clocks around here are now 2 hours early, according to the sun. That's right- when the sun is at its highest point in the sky, which is known as "noon", the clocks say it is 2PM.

So, using Wolfram/Alpha I checked "solar noon" for this location on the 6th and 21st of every month. I was happy to see that their data matched the observations I have recorded in the past. I was worried about that because if it hadn't matched, I would trust my observations rather than their data, and then I would have been yelled at (figuratively) for ignoring authority (like when I tell people that the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is wrong).

This graph that I posted is actually only the starting point. I copied it and made graphs stretched over 2 years (yes, solar noon stays consistent over at least small numbers of years; from my previous observations and cross checking by plugging different years into Wolfram/Alpha), and graphs where I marked the peaks and troughs, and marked the solstices and equinoxes. And lots of lines connecting lots of different data points. Looking at the patterns that were revealed.

It makes me curious about the main pattern. Why does solar noon wander up and down around the year, with two peaks and two troughs sandwiched between the solstices and equinoxes? (Update: Because-- in part-- the Earth's orbit is eliptical.) I could research it by seeing what others have to say, but that would be as boring as "labs" in school where the exact same "experiment" had been done millions of times before, and everyone knew what the results would be. Yawn.

Anyway, I will keep fiddling with it whenever the urge strikes me. And, I will still wonder why some "genius" decided that government had a better idea of what clocks should be set to.

Added: I have discovered this graph is called The Equation of Time. 

.

Libertarian ideals still hold up

Libertarian ideals still hold up

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 17, 2012)

I am constantly re-examining my beliefs and principles. All of them, not just libertarianism.

Mentally I try to look at them from every possible angle and twist them inside-out to see if there is a possibility I could be wrong and libertarianism isn't the most ethical philosophy which has ever been discovered for relating to all other people. Sometimes I am very unhappy at having to wade through arguments that seem abhorrent to me, from people who will try to justify every horror imaginable just to manipulate society into what they believe it should be, or to excuse terrible things they want to be able to do to others without a guilty conscience. But it is necessary for my own peace of mind to delve into the dragon's lair in order to find the truth.

If externally-imposed government (rather than self-government/"self control") really is a good idea, and if The State is really the right way to impose that government, I don't want to be stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the right thing.

If natural human rights don't really exist, as some claim, yet somehow there still exists a "right to govern" that can be claimed or delegated, I would want to know it. If it really is wrong for you and me to be responsible for the defense of our own lives and property; that we should leave that to the "professionals", I want to do the right thing. If it really is necessary to sacrifice the individual and his property for "the common good", as in the various wealth-redistribution schemes we see at work, then why fight it? If it really is appropriate to kidnap and kill people for their own good- to prevent them from harming themselves- then it's time to accept it.

So far I have not been able to twist things enough that coercion or "violence against the non-violent" becomes right, and theft becomes something other than theft if done by a government employee. Every argument to that effect I have ever encountered is so full of holes and inconsistencies that it falls apart as soon as you begin to examine it. But I keep looking.

So far, only the libertarian idea- that it is wrong to attack the innocent or steal, and your position in society changes nothing in that regard- holds up to scrutiny.

I'll let you know if anything ever changes, because I'd rather be embarrassed at having to eat my words than to be wrong and refuse to accept it.

.

The "Top 100" List

Click on the graphic to see:

According to The Humble Libertarian, anyway.

Personally, I wouldn't consider all of those listed to be "libertarian" at all (probably, especially, all the LP sites), and I can think of several that are much better that weren't included. Still, it might be good to check out all those blogs and websites and form your own opinion.

And, I'm certainly not going to try to make my own "top 100" list. Just too subjective, and would vary according to my mood and what day it is.

.

Food Stamps and other handouts

In the midst of a discussion of unrelated subjects with someone dear to me, I was called a "hypocrite" and stubborn" and told I should just get over my "pride" because I won't accept food stamps, since I would probably "qualify" for them. And, it's not even that I or my child go unfed, it's just that we don't have money for some of life's unnecessary things.

The person who made that comment to me is on food stamps. And, I didn't criticize her for it; just explained why I won't.

And, because of this I was denigrated.

I realize it is probably because the things I said made the other person feel bad about themselves. But, like I say, I told her I am not saying anything about anyone else or the choices they make. I am just saying what I will not do, due to my understanding of the situation. I don't know how I can get any less judgmental than that.

(I also got a notice today from the hospital that said I was approved for "assistance" on my recent hospital adventure. No thanks. I didn't ask for it and don't really appreciate the unsolicited offer. But, I realize it is probably automatically-generated. I shredded it.)

.

My prejudice cracks through

The other day, at a fast food place, I saw an older-middle-age guy in an Obama T-shirt. Instantly I was overcome with "The Stereotype". I saw him as a snobby "progressive" who was probably on welfare and/or held a bureaucratic "job" which he depended on Big Government to create an imaginary "need" for.

I know that isn't nice of me. After all, I know from previous experience that when people see me without any context (and maybe in context) they see me as an ignorant hick. Someone who mumbles incoherently in single-syllable, incorrectly-pronounced words. Or something. I have actually had people confess that I was not at all what they had expected from appearances. Good.

As I watched him with my peripheral vision I tried to picture the shirt without the Obama image. I could almost eliminate the prejudice that way, until Obama showed up again. Then the suspicions came flooding back.

One thing that bewilders me beyond words is why- why on Earth- would anyone choose to wear a shirt that celebrates a puppetician? Why? Why venerate the most defective people in society? It's like wearing a shirt celebrating rabies or ebola. It seems to me that it shows an incredible lack of sense. Unless you do it as an exercise in irony.

.

Seeking out confirmatory sources

One big problem that most people have when they think about politics is, apparently, that they seek out sources that only confirm their biases, and avoid those that would expose them to the contrary opinions.

I don't have that option. I think that is why libertarians/anarchists are better-informed than most people. It would be impossible for me to avoid statist opinions. They are everywhere I turn. On TV, in movies, in music, in newspapers, online, expressed by every person I hear talking- whether to me or to some other stranger standing in line at the store. We all swim in an ocean of statism.

Now, we liberty-lovers could stick our fingers in our ears and scream "La la la, I can't HEAR you!" But I don't know any who do that, literally or figuratively. Instead, we roll with it and pick apart the flawed statist claims. They may not be listening since it is very easy for them to avoid being exposed to rational thinking. But that's OK. It just keeps making the reality gap wider.

.

TSA infographic

I realize the following is mostly just an advertisement, but I did find it interesting. And I am not getting any pay or any other consideration for posting it.

Obviously, I have deeper issues with the TSA and the "security industry" than the fact it is inefficient and doesn't work. All taxation is theft, even if it does what it is supposed to do, and the only security that has ever worked or ever will is a fully-armed population that is willing to kill attackers.

With all that said, here's the "infographic":


Created by: OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree.com

Does life begin at conception?

Another thought concerning abortion has occurred to me. It is about the statement "Life begins at conception". I always thought there was something wrong with that assertion, and I finally realized what it is.

Life doesn't begin at conception: it continues at conception. A living egg and a living sperm combine to form a living zygote. The real question should be "Do rights begin at conception?" (and I don't believe they do).

Until there is an individual, there are no rights. A zygote is not an individual. So, when does the individual "begin"? I don't know.

*

I know that even mentioning this subject alienates people, as does my position that even if it were objectively proven that abortion is always "murder" I don't want the State making "laws" criminalizing it (or anything else, either). The State is not legitimate, and its "legal" opinion on anything is worthless to me. But I am going to say my piece and you can take it or leave it.

.

Uninventing the wheel

I see civilization as a wheel. Simple and effective.

Statists look at that wheel and worry about what might go wrong, and decide they need to make that wheel "better".

So, they chip away at its roundness by encumbering that wheel with "laws" and regulations and red tape, until the wheel is no longer a functional wheel. It may still roll along- barely- but it is no longer even really round. And, it is now more dangerous, which makes the statists point to the dangers that their meddling has created and say it shows a need for more chiselwork.

Civilization needs to be rid of The State and its insane supporters. The sooner the better.

.

We all have our hobbies...

Sometimes, I admit, I really enjoy playing with statists.

As long as both sides can keep it civil.

It's just too easy to poke holes in their "arguments". Sometimes, it takes a lot of words- depending on how many separate delusions are involved, and are addressed. But it is never really hard; just time-consuming.

Is this a personality flaw of mine?

.

Rich-bashing

A facebook friend sent me a link to the article 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying. He asked if I would address author David Wong's points. Wow. I don't even know where to start.

I guess the main thing that overshadows everything else is that if a guy got rich honestly, his money is none of your business. No matter how much he has, and no matter if he hoards it or invests it. And, if he got his money by theft, fraud, or by using government (yes, I just repeated myself there), then it doesn't matter if he is still hasn't gotten rich. Dishonest money isn't more dishonest just because there is more of it.

All in all, this Wong character sounds like a whiny, envious, "It's not fair" kind of guy, who also doesn't know the first thing about the reality of economics. Well, as Scott Adams so eloquently put it, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments". It is not a feature of reality.

There is just so much wrong with Wong's whine that I'm not going to even try to address everything he is wrong about. It would take a book.

So, by his numbering, here is what I think of his whine:

#6- He begins by saying that rich people who claim that $500,000 doesn't necessarily make you rich are oblivious. Maybe. I don't live in a particularly expensive area, or a big city, so I can get by on less. I'm not going to judge how much money someone needs to live where they choose to live, even if it's a "huge amount" by my standards. I also know that "rich" is subjective, and that's something Wong doesn't seem to get. Also, once again, whether someone is rich or poor, you don't get to decide to take their money away to use as you wish, even if you decide they have "too much". Sorry.

#5- He feels insulted that "rich" people claim to have worked hard to get their money. There's that old "fairness" thing again. Sure, I would like it if being a hard-blogging libertarian philosopher paid really well. But it doesn't and it isn't likely to ever do so. I do not have the inclination to do the kinds of things that rich people do to make money. Maybe I don't even have the ability. That isn't a rich person's fault, even if it also isn't my fault. Maybe that's just how the Universe works. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes, things you value are not things other people value. Sometimes "hard work" doesn't equal "valuable work". Or, they are things that anyone could do- no "skill" or unusual talent involved- so there isn't much reason to pay a lot for them. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but that doesn't entitle you to punish people who had marketable skills that pay well, or people who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right talents.

#4- Wong then complains that rich people claim that if they got rich, so can you. I've encountered this one myself. A guy I used to know pretty well made money with everything he touched. He couldn't lose. He couldn't understand why everyone (particularly, me) wasn't wealthy. He kept telling me that making money was easy. Yet, here I am- still broke. But I don't blame him at all. There were things that were very easy to me that he couldn't do. It's just that my talents didn't bring financial reward while his did. I could have been bitter and jealous of him, or I could have kept counting him as a friend. I chose the happier path. Wong's error is the "slice of pie fallacy". Listen, wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie where if you have a bigger slice, mine is automatically smaller. No, the bigger your slice of the pie, the bigger the entire pie grows, and the better my chance of getting a bigger slice becomes. Mr. Wong, your ill-informed rant hurts us all by misleading other ignorant people into agreeing with you, and damaging the economy as a result. I hope you get smarter before you do too much damage- if anyone is listening to you.

#3- Then he complains that rich people say he is just jealous because they "made it" and he didn't. I agree there. His whole tirade stinks of jealousy and envy (and the echo still repeats "but it's not fair!"). I am not jealous of "the rich". I'd love to join them someday (if I could do so without losing more than I gain- which seems unlikely). I think most people who bash the rich do so in the belief that by bringing them down, they will somehow gain. What a pathetic desire to have. You could also have an advantage if you blinded everyone else in the world. But it doesn't make you better in any way. Wong believes he has a right, as a part of "society", to judge you for how you choose to spend your money. He believes you answer to him when you spend. And if he disagrees with your choice, he will call you names and advocate that The State steal more of your money to give to him. Because, if you don't spend your money the way he wants you to, then you are acting like a supervillain who lives on an island by himself. Pitiful creature, Mr. Wong is. Grasping at those straws that make him feel justified in advocating theft.

#2- Next Wong goes off on the "rich person's" claim that "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!" He doesn't understand how value is created. He believes that the labor of poor people is why the factory is profitable. He forgets that the poor people had to have the factory provided by someone in order to use their labor to create the profit. Will those poor people band together to build the factory? They could... but will they? It sure doesn't happen very often. You need someone with the money to help you make your products and money. Perhaps Wong believes this is the place of The State. Perhaps he is wrong again. It's funny how much this contradicts his whole "no man is an island" thesis that he uses elsewhere. The poor could just get along fine if only those pesky rich people didn't have any "extra" money to spend on infrastructure along with the caviar. Please! The rich already "pitch in" in more ways, and to a greater degree, than Mr. Wong can wrap his mind around. He isn't asking them to "get something down from a very tall shelf because nobody else can ... reach it", he is ordering them to get it down because he is too lazy to bring over the step ladder. Anyone would balk when you order them to do your job for you while you point a gun at their head.

#1- Finally, he pushes his collectivist view that everyone is just as parasitical as he is, and that claiming that you should stop asking for handouts is just mean. Or delusional. I don't care if someone asks for handouts. What I hate is when they demand you hand over your property at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter to me if they are using their own gun and putting their own life in peril, or using the State's gun and stealing through democracy. You have no right to any other person's property. Go ahead: ask for handouts. Just don't think you are entitled to them. And don't expect people not to look at you as a whiny, selfish, lazy parasite.

A funny footnote. In the column Wong says "all civilization and morality rests on the fact that we have to answer to each other - the only reason I haven't murdered a dozen people in traffic is because society will bring consequences if I do." That's the classic collectivist's admission. It crops up in almost every conversation with a statist if they talk long enough. And, remember that these are the very people who seek political office and bureaucratic jobs. They simply redirect their murderous tendencies into jobs where they can cause pain to others without being punished for it. And I'm supposed to "honor" their choice? I don't think so. I don't murder people because it is wrong to attack the innocent, not because I fear the consequences. It's really not a hard decision to make. Am I that much better than the Wongs of the world?

.

Why "dollar"?

I posted the following comment in response to this essay concerning "face value" of private money:

I think it would be useful for voluntary currency to ditch the "dollar" face value for something that doesn't need to move up or down. How about a face value in "vollars"? Or something that sounds less like "dollar". An ounce of minted copper could be one "vollar", and other coins could be valued in multiples of that. Or, if an ounce of silver is used as the vollar, you could have fractional values for smaller coins and copper. Then, somewhere, there could be a published exchange rate between vollars and dollars.

I think that tying face value to something that is doomed, like the dollar, is a bad idea, and dangerous, too, as Bernard von NotHaus discovered. I'm not interested in "dollars", but in money. Value. Hmmm. So, maybe the currency could be called "Valors". (I still like my own "Silver Dubloons".)

Whatever... I even designed a symbol that could be used for a voluntary currency like the "$" is used for dollars:

Liberty is better

Even if there were some problem that liberty made worse, I would still support liberty. Liberty improves the odds that a real solution, rather than some bandaid, will be found.

However, the case is usually that when liberty is supposedly making some situation "worse", it really isn't. Maybe the situation isn't perfectly solved, but the State solution is always just as bad, and it fails to enhance individual liberty making a true solution less likely to be found.

All else being equal, I would consider more liberty, even if the underlying problem is unchanged, to be a net gain.

And, in every instance I have really picked apart (so far), liberty actually makes the underlying problem less of a problem. Regardless of the claims of the statists.

.

Anger: the anti-liberty

There is a place for anger. When you see injustice, and rights being violated, it is only human to get angry. The danger is that in your anger you will strike out in such a way that you become just as bad as that which angers you.

If your anger leads you to advocate a "governmental solution", then your anger is only leading to more trouble. There is ALWAYS a better way, even if you haven't yet thought of it.

There are things that make me angry. However, if my knee-jerk reaction is "There oughta be a law..." or a desire for enhanced punishment from the State, I know I am off-track somewhere and I need to re-examine my thinking processes. And, when I run into such things from another liberty advocate, I know they are dealing with some inconsistencies (or pain) in their life that need to be addressed. And, I need to remind myself to not let it make me angry.

.

Church, state will never separate

Church, state will never separate

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 3, 2012, with a paragraph, which I had removed for the newspaper's consumption, reinstated.)

Much is made of the separation of Church and State, but the truth is that while Church and State sometimes temporarily separate, on the insistence of those who get caught in the middle, they will never divorce. They were made for each another.

Church is possibly a little older than her partner, but she hides her age well by getting a face-lift every few years. State just matures and gets more efficient, sly, and paranoid as he ages.

Church and State grew up together. Theirs was a tumultuous childhood; both were very cruel as children. Church enjoyed torturing, even killing and burning, animals and people, while State focused his attention on people. Both have encouraged people to fight one another on their behalf. Both Church and State have always insisted on being supported by their neighbors, claiming that this was so they could protect the people from unseen, or exaggerated, threats. Except for some rather horrible tantrums, both have gotten better at hiding their natures from casual observers as they've gotten older, and even today most people will come to their defense.

No one knows when Church and State first married; it seemed as if they had always been a couple. They slap each other around a lot, and do a lot of shouting and cussing at one another- because it isn't a peaceful marriage, but it is a convenient arrangement that neither wants to end.

Church and State will each occasionally do something good for society, in order to encourage people to say how essential they are. Each partner has their supporters, and some people actually support both. A very small minority support neither, and throughout history this demographic hasn't usually fared well at the hands of the couple's fans. Yet, neither Church nor State has been very loyal to their ardent supporters.

No one objected to the marriage for many years, until a few people decided Church and State would be less harmful- to each other or to innocent bystanders- if they could be kept apart. This separation is opposed by those who want the couple to stay together in order to use them against specific enemies. Only the naive believe that this pair will ever be limited to bullying bad guys.

So, a while back there was a more concerted effort to split up the couple, and a separation- at least on paper- finally happened. However, it was only for appearances. The couple may live in different apartments but they are still "friends with benefits" and only give lip service to the separation when it seems useful. Most people try really hard to pretend they don't see the nudging and winking in public. But, knock on one partner's door and the other will usually be sitting on the couch, perfectly at home, in the background.

The truth remains that while you may believe the couple is separated, they are still married and will never divorce. There's just no real reason to. They are too comfortable with the status quo and gain too much from the marriage. 'Til Death do They Part.

.

Reaping what you sow

If I attack any innocent person, I deserve to be killed by that person, or by someone defending them. I have a right to defend myself from their defensive, actions, but make no mistake- I am the one on the wrong side. It wouldn't matter if I pinned a badge on my chest or if I was in Pakistan wearing a military uniform. The one initiating force deserves whatever he gets. Period. I have no legitimate reason to whine about "proportionality"- if I don't want to be maimed or killed in self defense I shouldn't attack.

I just don't feel sorry for aggressors who reap the fruits of their actions. Even when the person they are attacking is worse than they are. In fact, I find it very humorous when bad guys clash, as long as no innocent person is hurt in the crossfire.

Let them all arm themselves however they want, and I'll seek shelter until they have all "honored" themselves to death. Good riddance to these burdens on civilization.

.

"I don't support the military"

Sometimes I wonder if I should just keep my mouth shut.

Yesterday as I was relaxing at home, the doorbell rang. That's a very rare occurrence, since few people (other than family) will enter the gate to come to the door. I went to the door and it was a college-age guy from the nearest university selling "cow-pie bingo" tickets. I listened to his sales pitch and was just about to ask the price when he mentioned that the proceeds were to be used to help military families in some way. I politely cut him off by saying "Sorry, but I don't support the military".

He thanked me for my time and left.

I wonder if he had ever gotten that response before. I wonder if others feel the same as I do, but are scared to say so in this religio-militaristic area. If he had asked for an explanation I would have told him that I support the militia, but not government-owned militaries. I would have told him that "the troops" are not fighting for "our freedom" but are putting me and my family- and his- in mortal danger by creating hatred for Americans, and growing an unending crop of new "terrorists" every day. I would have explained that "taxation" is really nothing more or less than pure theft. But he didn't ask, so we left it at that.

I hate myself when I keep silent in the face of such assumptions, but afterward I always wonder if speaking up, even politely, will put me on another "list".

.

"Operation #EFAD"

Yes, just do it. I did. To scare the authoriturds and puppeticians, if nothing else.

I also have the paper edition, and while I don't agree with every detail of Bracken's politics, it should be a very scary book for our real enemies.

.

Breakfast of Zombies

I have an idea for a new breakfast cereal. So, instead of emailing Kellogg's or General Mills, where they could claim the idea as their own and deny it was my idea first, I'll put it all down here. And, yes, I know cereal probably isn't the healthiest thing to put in your body, but it's just an idea that I think could be very profitable.

What is it that kids seem obsessed with these days? Zombies. I haven't seen any zombie-related cereals. So, my idea is...

"Zom-bits- they're apocaly-cious!" Most of the pieces would be shaped like brains. Maybe some hands, feet, and other body parts/organs too. Colored pink (speckled with red). If heart-shaped pieces are included they could be red.

Now, write the cereal companies, send them this link, and demand they buy the idea from me and let the little pop-culture-influenced zombies enjoy Zom-bits.

.