Cops/Terrorists

There's a fair amount of attention being paid to the claim that cops have killed more Americans since 9/11 than the terrorists killed that day.  Not surprising, but why not include cops with their brethren, the other terrorists?  It's a false distinction.

Anyway, I wish someone would make a distinction between murder-by-cop and a cop killing someone who needs to be killed.  If you or I would face punishment for acting as the cop did in any incident, it's most likely a case of murder.

I accept that some people, in the midst of some actions, need to be killed to protect the innocent- and I can even accept that in some cases the only people present and in danger might be cops, and in that case I wouldn't fault them for killing in self defense.

But further, I would like to see how many of those cases of self defense were made necessary by cops escalating a situation.  If you are enforcing some BS rule such as prohibition (guns or drugs) or trying to help someone violate the private property of an individual through "taxation" or "code enforcement", then you started it, and your actions can't be self defensive at their foundation.  You deserve to die "in the line of 'duty'".  I would be willing to bet the cops wouldn't fare well under such scrutiny, so I doubt the facts will ever be released where they could be analyzed.

I would take an encounter with an honest terrorist whom I could shoot without too much danger of being punished for defending myself over an encounter with a cop, whom I would undoubtedly be punished for defending myself from.

How about you?

.

Wishing you joy in simple things

Wishing you joy in simple things

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 20, 2013.)

It's that time of the year again, when all but the most cynical grumps among us feel a bit sentimental and more forgiving toward their fellow humans. It's a time when gifts are given and received, bringing joy to everyone involved. Unless the gift involves terra cotta and chia seeds.

I wish I were rich enough to give everyone around me something tangible which would adequately demonstrate their worth. Since that's not possible, I'll tell you what my wish for each of you would be.

My wish is for you to find joy in the simple things you'll end up spending most of your time doing anyway, and still enjoy the surprises which come along to turn your world on its head.

My wish is for all your relationships to be strictly voluntary and non-coercive. Not only at this time, but throughout the entire year.

My wish is that you realize the ability to have or to do the things you want the very most, and come to understand the only way to have that is to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

My wish is for you to have just the exact amount of government you are happy to have controlling your life; no more, no less. I wish the same for each and every one of your neighbors. As long as you keep this gift to yourself everyone will be happy. Sort of like those Rudolph underwear you got a few Christmases ago.

My wish is for you to find the joy in discovering that you can get everything done which should be done, voluntarily. My wish is for you to accept that if you have to force people to participate, it's probably not quite as wonderful as you claim. I wish you the peace of letting go of those things you believe everyone else should want, but they don't, even under threat of jail.

My wish is for you to have the ability to make an honest profit by doing what you actually enjoy, so that you'll never "work" a day in your life, and that you'll always have people clamoring at your door to spend their money with you of their own free will. I wish for you the ability to keep everything you earn, safe from thieving hands of any kind.

My wish is for you to be able to worship in any way you like, free from fear of oppression or coercion, but that you never gain the ability to impose your religious ideas on others through law.

Merry Christmas- or the winter solstice holiday of your choice.
.

Nationalism- ewww!

Nationalism is messed up. It's still messed up even if your country really were "the best" because of how it becomes automatic and blinds you to negative changes.

Suppose you had a "country" that was founded upon rightful liberty, and which only had rules that reflected that.  Sure, those rules would still be unnecessary, but very little harm would come from them.

I could understand some sort of nationalism in your mind toward this "country".

However, if over time, your "country" changed to where rightful liberty was thrown under the train by more and more harmful rules, and you were in such a habit of "loving your country" that you didn't notice the change, then your nationalism becomes a caricature of itself.  You are now cheering a corpse.  A rotting, festering corpse which is spreading disease and killing all those who insist on kissing it on the mouth.  Or wherever.  You now stink just like the corpse.  You appear insane to anyone looking on who is even slightly removed from your beliefs.

That's how nationalism appears to me.

.

Electing the ridiculous

If elections are good enough for some things, let's just impose them for everything.

We can elect America's favorite color.  If red wins, then everyone's favorite color will be red, at least until the next election.  Anyone who previously had a different favorite color has to adjust their preferences.  Red things will be given priority everywhere.  Those who stubbornly cling to some other color will have to go to the back of the line- if allowed to participate at all.  And, their unapproved "favorite" might just come with other penalties, yet to be determined.

Then we can do the same for car models.  The one that wins will determine the size of parking spaces, the height of drive throughs, turning radii, and road conditions.  And of course, all will be made in America's favorite color only.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it.

In this case there's no such thing as "America", in this sense.  There are only individuals, each of whom has different ideas of "best".

It's just as stupid to elect "leaders".  This is why politicians can't be leaders.  Leaders can't be imposed.  A leader emerges spontaneously and organically, and can't be elected to shortcut his way to "leadership".  A "majority" of those who vote can't choose a leader for everyone else. Either enough people agree that the person is a leader, by following voluntarily and without forbidding opting out, or the person is just a pretender.  That's the difference between a leader and a Ruler- well, one of the differences, anyway.

.

Too hard on cops? #2

Without enforcers there can be no tyranny.

Cops are where the boot-heel meets the face.

There is no excuse for them.  Not anymore (if there ever was).  You can either support and advocate liberty, or you can support cops.  Well, you can also do neither, but you can't do both.
If you are a "friend of cops" you are an enemy of liberty, by your own choice, not by anyone else's opinion.

It's not possible to be "too hard on cops".  They have the option each and every day of ending their abuse by walking away from the "job" and pension, or to choose to continue being a bad guy.  You see which they choose by what they continue to wear and what they continue to do.

It's impossible to focus on this fact "too much".  Never let anyone forget it.

.

Thinking is what I do best

If there's one thing I do better than anything else, I would say that thing is thinking.  I think very well.

I'm not saying my thinking has any real world benefits outside my skull.  I might be like an artist who produces a huge number of works that never sell, but instead sit in his attic until he is dead and his relatives are left to figure out what to do with all this "stuff".

But I spend an awful lot of time and energy thinking.  Even if I am doing other things, I am thinking- often deeply detailed thoughts.  I can figure out almost anything, given the time and right information.  When I experience "flow", it is usually because some thought concept has suddenly started unraveling itself in my head- pushing aside all other thoughts until it is a fully formed Thought.

My thinking life has manifested itself in various physical ways.  As a child my thoughts usually became drawings.  Sometimes thoughts became toys when I was forced to make a toy I wanted, but which wasn't offered for sale anywhere.  It wasn't that I just made the things; the thoughts formed and I was compelled to make them take form.

As I entered that hell known as school, my thoughts became daydreams and doodles that spontaneously took form on any bit of paper while a "teacher" talked.  Even when real teachers spoke I could listen and process the information better if I kept my thinking brain busy by doodling- except in very rare cases where my mind was challenged enough that it needed all its faculties engaged to process what the teacher was saying.  Stop me from doodling and my "noisy" brain wasn't constructively distracted and I couldn't concentrate.  The "teachers" didn't believe me when I told them this fact, but it was completely accurate and true.

During high school I still doodled, but I also attempted to write fictional stories.  Which I hated when I re-read them.  My thinking was better than my writing, by far.

I have thoughts in so many different areas that I can't begin to list all the different types of creative things I have been forced to try to learn to do in order to make those thoughts real.  Once I get an idea in my head I can't move on until I do my best to give it physical reality.

In "adulthood" I have used my thinking to design things which met with varying degrees of popular success.  I have let my thoughts become paintings, flags, clothing, written works (blogs and columns and stories and even erotica), coins, useful household objects, skills I needed to learn, concepts I thought would solve problems, etc. All because I can't get my brain to shut up for even a minute.

I have a very active imagination, and can construct mental worlds with great detail (and dream in great detail, sometimes "lucid dreams") and can extrapolate very well.

That's not to say I believe I am above having flaws in my thought processes or that I'm never wrong.  I would be foolish to imagine that.   I am just saying I am very good at thinking, whatever that is worth.

.

Liberty Lines, January 16, 2014

(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM State Line Tribune)

The front page article about the Farwell man arrested on "drug, weapon charges" should bother anyone who cares about doing right.

I don't know the man or anything about him.  However, if you don't stand up for everyone, equally, when you see them violated, your complaints will be seen as hypocritical if you ever fall victim to the same.

Of all the charges he faces, only one has even the possibility of being an actual wrong.  I'll address that in a bit.

First let me examine the other charges: possession of marijuana.  Prohibition is always wrong and enforcing it always does more harm than the prohibited substances ever could.  To then criminalize "drug paraphernalia" is just heaping stupidity upon insanity.

"Possession of prohibited weapons" is another non-crime.  To admit you have, or enforce, a list of "prohibited weapons" is an admission that you are the one operating outside the law.  "Shall not be infringed" is not a suggestion, but a warning that any government employee who does infringe upon the right to keep and bear (that means to own and to carry, in case you didn't know) arms (which means any weapon of any sort, not just firearms) is committing a serious crime.

Then you have the twin charges of "evading arrest" and "resisting arrest".  If you have done nothing wrong, you have a right to try to prevent your arrest.  Laws used to reflect and support this basic right, but the growing police state finds this inconvenient and has recently added these fake "crimes" to it's enforcement tool kit in order to pad the charges filed.

Finally we come to the only possible wrong in that list of charges: assault.  The problem is, it isn't "assault" if you are fighting back against being kidnapped ("arrested") by those enforcing fake "laws"- in such a case you are defending yourself.  Assault is what you are defending against.

I also notice that the excuse given for trespassing on this man's liberty was a suspicion that he had stolen property, and that he wasn't charged with theft.  This makes me suspect the original excuse was known to be false from the start; a "fishing expedition" to find something to justify an arrest.

Sure, you can say enforcers have no say in the laws they enforce, but that's a cop-out.  Everyone always has the choice to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing.  Tyranny is always first made legal.  As a human being, you make the choice to either enforce tyranny, or to support liberty.  Make the right choice.

.

Murderers get a freebie

So, the enforcers who murdered Kelly Thomas were found "not guilty".  Meh.  Jury nullification (since this was an obvious, overt, and very public murder) goes both ways.

I have zero faith in the "justice system", and as I've said before, I don't think it's the proper place for justice anyway.

Nope.  The justice should come now.

I'm not saying these murderers should be given the same treatment that left Kelly Thomas comatose, and then dead, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop anyone who did.  Karma, and all that.

What I am saying is that if these murderers were in my local area I would shun them, totally and completely.  They would be invisible to me as former humans.  I wouldn't employ them, nor do business with anyone who did.  I wouldn't sell to them for any price, and would complain to (and publicize) any business which did.  I would do everything I could to ensure these murderers died- cold, hungry, and utterly alone.  Sooner rather than later.  And I would never stop pointing out that they ARE murderers, and had they not been enforcers, they would be sitting in a cage by now.

This quote from the article linked above tells you the new rules of the game:

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, told reporters: "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

So "peace" means beating you or me to death, and murder is what enforcers are trained to do to you and me. It's their "job".  Use that information as you will.

.

Liberty is not Utopia, but reality

Liberty is not Utopia, but reality

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 13, 2013)

Is libertarianism, and its notion of "everything voluntary", Utopian?

Libertarians would point out the belief that government can be restrained and kept to a safe minimum is highly idealistic, and goes against the evidence of history.

Believers in the possibility of good government blame everyone and everything other than the institution itself for its consistent failures. Or they simply deny the failures.

They'll claim if Americans would just restore the Constitution- by which they mean get government to agree to strictly obey its charter again- everything would be fine.

It's not a matter of restoring the Constitution. Constitutions can't stop bad people with political power from eventually doing whatever they want to do. Expecting the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as a barrier to government power is a refusal to see where the justices' loyalties lie. Governments will never restrain themselves, and voters will always seek to vote themselves handouts, favors, and privileges, regardless of what a constitution allows.

Additionally, the government faithful will insist if we would only elect "the right people" the country would stop going in the wrong direction.

The fact is the "right people" are never even allowed to get nominated, much less elected, and even when half-way decent people are elected they immediately become corrupted by the system they were elected to change.

No person can represent a huge group of individuals with opposing opinions and conflicting morals. It is impossible. Instead he will represent only himself and tell you why you are wrong to disagree with him. Then, if he's in the majority in his particular government, he'll impose his will on you, under threat of violence.

Woe to you if your conscience tells you what he demands is wrong.

Even under the "best" government, the inevitable is merely delayed. History shows that republics always turn into democracies, and democracies always become tyrannies. The only variable is how quickly it happens. The idea that there's an optimal amount of government is like imagining there's a perfect amount of cancer. Above none, I mean.

The biggest complaint most non-libertarians have with our philosophy is that it allows no double standards to enable their favorite use of coercion. What is it you wish to do to others, using government, that you know would be wrong to do as an individual?

Libertarianism accepts flawed human nature. It accepts that power corrupts. That's not Utopian, it's reality.

.

Any chair in a bar fight?

Confession time:

For my CNJ column this week I am using two things I don't "believe in" to try to speak to those who believe in both.  Those things would be the Bible and the US Constitution.

Last week a friend pointed out to me that in my CNJ column I had written "Aggressive violence and theft are the proper purview of laws" and commented "it sounds to me like you are backing off a notch from a pure anarchist/voluntaryist position."

Which I'm not.  I explained that to me, the only real law is Natural Law, and all others are counterfeit "law", and to denote them I put quotation marks around the word "law".  Which the newspaper sometimes edits away.  Natural Law addresses aggressive violence and theft- all written "laws" are unnecessary or harmful.  Or both.

Which brings me back to the upcoming column.  I do try to tailor my newspaper columns to the local audience, which is overwhelmingly "Christian" (at least in self identification) and "conservative".  So, I try to remember that and use it, without watering down my core message.  I may not always succeed.

Still, I feel an explanation is in order when I give too much weight to things I don't believe in an attempt to get a message across to those who do.  Yeah, it sometimes leaves a foul taste in my mouth.  I hope it doesn't come across as dishonest.  I hope the truth still shines through.

.

I was wrong: Cops aren't "rabid"

I have often referred to enforcers and other aggressors are "rabid", but I was wrong.

Rabies is always* fatal and incurable.

That doesn't describe the affliction cops and other thugs have.  Nope, they have staties.  

These "statid" individuals are very dangerous, but they are less infectious than it might first appear.  In fact, unless an individual is infected while an infant or a young child, they are probably immune to the disease.  It is very difficult to transmit staties to someone able to think for themselves in a rational and logical manner.

I have also found that staties is curable.  There's not yet a large rate of success, but it does seem to be increasing over time.  I, and a lot of other people, keep searching for the cure.

Thank you for your contributions which help fund the research.  Together, we can find the cure.

_

*With, I think, two individual exceptions so far.

Ex-cop, still a pig, murders man for texting

Because texting is a capital offense- especially if you upset a cop by doing it.  Anti-"texting and driving" rules just reinforce this behavior in enforcers- and apparently in ex-enforcers, too.  After all, if texting is sometimes justification for escalation of violence, all the way up to and including murder, why not always?

I have seen a few comments along the lines of "once a pig, always a pig"... and in this case it seems to be an accurate observation.  Although, as I have said before, some of the ex-cops I have known make me look like a cop-lover by comparison.

"I can't believe people would bring a gun to a movie," said a witness... yet had the murderous ex-cop still been in uniform, no one would have uttered such stupid words- even had the exact same scenario played out.  It's not about the gun or the location, it's about a lowlife enforcer scum who believed his "right" to not be annoyed was worth more than someone else's life- it's about a cultivated sense of entitlement.  Because such people are out there, you should "bring a gun" everywhere.

Yes, I would be annoyed if someone were loudly texting during a movie (which wasn't even the case here, since the movie was yet to begin), but I have the sense not to murder someone for doing so.

The murdered man's family is lucky the murderer is an ex-cop; if he were a current enforcer the murder would be ruled "officer safety" and "within departmental guidelines", and knowing he would be let off with a short paid vacation, the murderer might just have finished off the wife, too, instead of "only" injuring her and murdering her husband.

I wonder how many more people will choose to blame the tool rather than the murderer or the enforcer culture that created him?

.

A voice in the wilderness. (Is that an NSA bug?)

It sounds silly, I know, but sometimes I am amazed at how insignificant I am and how little my views matter.  And that no matter how loudly I think I am shouting to the world, how few people actually hear me.  Unless you count that the NSA "listens" to us all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining.  Because of my insignificance I may not be able to single-handedly save "the world", but it also means I can't do too much damage when I'm wrong or frivolous.

I see the flap that occurs when some "Big Name" (by libertarian standards) makes some silly pronouncement that just about everyone else realizes is wrong-minded BS that fails the ZAP test, and then I'm glad to mostly be unnoticed, but sometimes, when I have what I think is a "great idea" that has never been thought before (and before I realize it has been around for centuries in various forms) I wish I could get more people to hear me and take me seriously.

As I say, I invariably discover that the idea isn't new, so "the world" loses nothing by not hearing me rediscover something that the Statist world has been happily ignoring for generations.  But, I think all "great ideas" and truths will keep being independently discovered until it becomes generally accepted, and you never know when one is going to take hold, or where that spark may come from.  Maybe even from me.

Ah, the amusement park that is the human ego.

.

The truth is harsh and painful

Reality is harsh and uncompromising.  If you fall through the ice in the wilderness, and can't get a fire going, you will die.  How you feel about the situation, that it's "unfair" or whatnot, won't change reality.

The truth is also often harsh.  You have no right to initiate force or take what isn't yours no matter how much you want to justify it.

People don't like hearing harsh truths.  They want to be told they are OK.  They want to think they aren't the bad guy if they initiate force or take what isn't theirs- especially if they can point to a "law" that says it's OK or if they can send others to do it on their behalf.  Calling it "arrest" or "taxation" or even "confiscation" of "prohibited" substances or items doesn't change that you are committing evil- or supporting those who do.

I have sent a Liberty Lines column to the State Line Tribune for this coming Thursday that I expect will not be received well by people who don't want to hear the harsh truth that they are advocating evil.

It is in response to an article about a local man's arrest on "drug, weapons charges".  I don't know the guy; he may be a thoroughly nasty character, or he may not be.  The point is, from the article it seems to me he isn't being charged with doing anything wrong.

I expect there will be some flak, possibly from local law enforcement.  But the truth is the truth, no matter who it upsets.  The truth doesn't care if you believe it or not.  It simply is.

Stay tuned...

.

Anonymoids

Anonymoids- I think that's a good name for those who act like a*holes from behind their veil of anonymity.

I don't run into that much here- I realize most of my anonymous commenters are simply either protecting their privacy, avoiding setting up a Blogger profile (which amounts to the same thing), or are hilarious spammers.  None of which are generally hostile (even when they disagree with me).

But on other, popular, blogs I see lots of anonymoids.  I even have my own anonymoid fanboy on one blog where I occasionally comment.  He rarely lets a comment go by without suggesting that he is shocked I haven't yet gone on a killing spree before offing myself.  I've taken to just giving him a virtual pat on the head like a yapping puppy any time he responds to me, which seems to have taken away some of his enthusiasm.  Poor little guy!

I think if you attract the attention of anonymoids, especially of the rabid statist variety, it just shows you are probably doing something right.  Think of them as an award on your wall.  Their hostility and stupidity just makes you look better.

.

Pardon my constuction mess

Excuse the mess that is my blog right now.

I had promised myself I would redesign the blog after the New Year to fix an annoying problem my old template was giving me.

So, today I did.

In the process I lost all my links to other blogs.  Grrr.

Give me time.  I'll fix that.

Thank you for your patience.

(Do you like it, or not?)

.

Nostalgia and the future

You can't go back again.

I spent the past couple of days working very hard (harder than it should be due to balky computers) uploading some home movies from 10 to 13 years ago so that they can be preserved.  I hope.

Originally they were on VHS-C tape, then transferred to DVD, and now they are digital and "hidden" away on Youtube.

This means I have gotten a massive dose of the nostalgia drug in my system.  I am not foolish enough to believe I can ever get those times back again, but I do believe I can find a way to create more memories worth feeling nostalgic over 13 years from now, with a mix of "old" and "new" friends.

But, as these things usually do, it got me to thinking.

I have said before that liberty lovers don't seek a return to some imaginary golden past- if you are like me you recognize that all eras have their good and bad points, and only liberty lets you pick those which work for you.

I think liberty can give you and me a future better than any past or present has ever been, and I intend to keep working toward it- sometimes by not working at it at all.  If you know what I mean.

I'll end with a clip that you might enjoy from one of the home movies.

Freedom, liberty are messy, like life

Freedom, liberty are messy, like life

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 6, 2013.  A huge amount was edited out this week, said to be "repetitive", which I sometimes find necessary to hammer a point home... but in this case I don't see that what was removed was repetitive at all.  Oh well.)

How is it that more things are illegal today than a year ago, and why has this been the trend for a couple hundred years? It's because there is an imbalance in how "laws" are imposed and eliminated. The scales of legislation are tipped in the wrong direction.

Even if only one out of every hundred proposed liberty violating "laws" is passed, liberty still shrinks, gradually, but inexorably. Because those "laws" almost never go away. Even when they seem to get abolished, in truth another "law" was probably passed to counter the first "law", rather than the first "law" being struck from the books.

But the biggest culprit is all the new "laws" that get proposed to pander to the folks crying "There ought to be a law" over every little thing that upsets their delicate sensibilities.

Of course, not every one of those bad "laws"- and they are all bad "laws"- gets passed the first time it is dreamed up. However, every time one of those "laws" fails to come to life it keeps getting proposed repeatedly until it eventually becomes "law". The political climate is always in flux, and even the most ridiculous or draconian "law" will eventually find a time and place to take root. The proposed "laws" never die and a "no" is never allowed to be final. "Laws" are held to be sacred, and liberty is an inconvenience to be sacrificed on a whim.

This leads to the condition I call "law pollution", where "laws" come to cover the world like so many "tumblebags" and burrito wrappers drifting against every fence and wall. Where everything not forbidden is mandatory.

That needs to change.

It is never valid to impose a "law" that violates individual liberty or property- no matter how many people want that "law", but pretending for a moment that it was sometimes OK, a "law" that would violate liberty or property should get, at most, one chance to be passed. After that, it should never be permitted to be proposed again. Not by changing the wording, not by tacking it onto another bill, and not by bureaucratic backdoor rule-making.

One shot at violating liberty, and then it's done. Forever.

And that's if you ignore the clear fact that it is very wrong to propose, pass, enforce, or obey that kind of "law" regardless.

Freedom, like life, is messy. Only the dead are predictable and stable. If the liberty of your neighbor scares you, that is your malfunction, not his. You are the one who needs to adapt. No new "laws".
.

Adventures with "borders"

Two discussions on Facebook (one and two) really illustrated to me the fuzzy thinking of the anti-immigration people.

Those who claim to revere the Constitution are willing to stand in line behind the anti-gun wackjobs to flush it right down the toilet in pursuit of their religion of "borderism".  Or try to read things into it that aren't really there, or stretch the things that are there completely out of shape, in order to reconcile their conflicting beliefs.

More and more I see it as evidence that such a person just really doesn't like "Hispanics" (because that's who they almost always have an issue with), and say their objection is only toward those who don't "go through the legal process" because they haven't yet figured out how to "send back" the others.  They are probably still "working on it".  Maybe I'm being unfair?

Me, I'm not concerned with where a person was born, or what color their skin is, or what language they speak, or which State (or it's employees) claims them.  Or, rejects them, as the case may be.  I only care whether or not a person initiates force or theft, and that they respect private property.

Which brings us back to the "borderists".  They always, eventually, fall back on that tired and silly argument that "illegal aliens" are trespassing on US property, which they then claim is identical to someone just walking into your house.  And they try to connect imaginary dots between individually keeping invaders out of your house and enforcers "protecting the borders".  And they almost always use the statist words of desperation: "don't call the cops to protect your property, then" to those who point out the inconsistency.

In other words, the borderists are fully willing to violate the private property of everyone in order to assert the claim of a State over all land inside its "borders".  How nasty of them.  And how inconsistent.  Their claim invalidates itself before it even gets out of their brain, and they don't see that.

I'm not saying here whether "allowing" open borders is a good thing or not.  I don't want aggressive individuals, thieves, and trespassers living near me regardless of where they were born, or whose permission they have received to be here.  But, really, until I need to use self defense against them, it is none of my business.  I have the absolute right to defend myself and my property from violators of any sort, and anyone who seeks to violate that human right is making themselves my enemy.

I also know it is wrong for any third party to control where people choose to travel or settle down, or to demand a fee for giving permission.

.

Government acronyms- it's always opposite day!

Puppeticians are such clowns.  Look at the acronyms they dream up for their stupid and evil rules, for example, the "PATRIOT Act" or the equally Orwellian and anti-safety "SAFE Act" that NY is imposing on compliant gun owners.

I expect to see, someday soon, something like the "LIFE Act", which would stand for something as nasty and anti-life as the "Legalize Immediately Fatal Enemas Act".

And, yet, the mainstream media would see nothing ironic about that rule's name, either.  Not as long as their lover, The State, said it was a good thing.  It would be swallowed without question, and anyone pointing out the ridiculousness of the acronym would be called all sorts of names (or simply ignored).

-
(If anyone would like to help out financially, I could really use $28 before this evening so my phone can stay activated. I have some other expenses coming in the next couple of days, but the phone is the most critical to life and limb.  UPDATE: I got what I need, but I'll not complain if anyone else wants to pitch in.  Thanks!)

.