Newt Gingrich and Freedom of Speech

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Goethe


Former Congressman and presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich suggested we may have to curtail freedom of speech. I thought it was the radical Muslims who wanted to take away our freedoms! It appears the radical Muslims, without a navy or air force, may succeed. They do not have to invade us and take away our freedoms. We frightened sheep will give away our freedoms, slowly, one election at a time.

Some say why worry if "You" have nothing to hide. This specious argument ignores the millions of people who had nothing to hide, but still died at the hands of their own government. They died because they tried to speak out against oppression.

There will be other terrorists attacks. Some psychotic geek cannot pass up the opportunity for notoriety. Some will be copycat attacks from Americans, like the Unabomber.

Death is a risk associated with freedom. Too many people think they can be free without risk. This is an illusion. If one wants to stay alive without risk they should commit a federal crime that is non violent and get sent to a minimum security prison. There they would be safe, sheltered, fed and have medical care provided.

People say there are radical Muslims who want to impose Islamic law on us. I say there are also some radical Christians who want to impose their biblical laws on us.

There are all kinds of groups who want their ideology to be imposed on others. Our constitution has helped prevent this. Lately our constitution has been under attack by different groups.

The neo cons are in retreat but they never stop shouting "fire!" After the cold war was over they needed a new bogeyman. After the war against terrorists diminishes they will reappear with a new label and a new bogeyman. Troops that are not yet born will saddle up, and to the sounds of trumpets and the waving of flags, they will march of to another war.

Men are addicted to killing other men. They cannot help themselves. If they could, would any rational person go to war instead of settling their disputes in a court of law?

Bilbo Baggins

Our Moral Responsibility

Some pundits dressed in expensive suits will get on TV or write about America's moral "responsibility" to the people in Iraq and other countries.

How do they define America? Many will say America is the people who live in America. Others will say it is the Government.

America is a country/state that does not have any morals or conscience. Organizations do not posses such qualities, only individuals have morals, character, and a conscience. Many individuals have different morals. For one to say to another, my morals are better than your morals, only leads to conflict.

When the pundit says "we" have a moral responsibility she means that someone else must go and do the fighting. They never use the pronoun "I" and say "I have a moral responsibility to help the Iraq people". If she did say that then she would be obligated to go to Iraq and fulfill her responsibility.

I do not think I have a responsibility for all the bad choices people in the rest of the world have made. They have chosen to believe in myths and worship chimeras. They have chosen ethnic violence. They have chosen socialism and authoritarian rule over the rule of the individual. Now you tell me I am responsible for all of those millions of bad choices. If I am responsible for someone's actions then I need the authority to control their actions.

The Sunnis in Iraq used to oppress the Shias. Now the Shias are in charge. Do I have a moral responsibility to protect the Sunnis? I don't think so.

When the war lovers and meddlers say "we" have an obligation--, I wonder just who "we" are. Is it the people who love power so much they are willing to venture into any folly? Is it the soldier who loves a career and the desire to come home to a parade and be called a hero? Is it the suppliers of war materials? I suspect it is all of these and more. It is the military, industrial, labor, congressional, religious, etc. complex that loves global gladiator sports.

I could understand it if President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others said, "they" have a moral responsibility for what has happened in Iraq. After all, much of the debacle of Iraq is caused by their invasion. Left alone Iraq would have had a civil war, overthrown Saddam Hussein, and split into ethnic territories. All tyrannies collapse onto themselves.

The pundits who want to meddle in other countries' affairs cannot help themselves. They live off the misery of others. They love the chaos and crisis management. If the world was all peaceful and happy, good Samaritans would be miserable. I read a comment by a woman who was a doctor in a clinic and she said the happiest she has ever been is when she is helping her terminally ill patients prepare for death. It is so sad that she gets her most happiness at the misery of others. Helping someone die is a sad day for me.

Bilbo Baggins

Fortress America?

Every state begins in compulsion; but the habits of obedience become the content of conscience, and soon every citizen thrills with loyalty to the flag. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 1, 1935


Denis wrote,

> What should we do, hide in the former "fortress America"? Castles and fortresses don't work anymore.<

We have not been a fortress for the past hundred years. Instead we have been meddling in other countries affairs, especially the Muslim countries. We have troops and bases in over 100 other countries. Had we been a fortress, maybe some of the 9/11 highjackers would not have been allowed in this country.

We have tried to be a fortress for Europe, parts of Asia, and certainly a fortress for Israel, but not a fortress America. We have been a fortress for the tribal leaders of many of the Arab oil producing countries as they fleeced their country's oil revenue, therefore angering many in the Muslim community.

Why did they attack us and not Mexico? Why would they attack the most powerful country on the earth when they could have attacked another Christian nation that was a soft target? We spend so much on defense and Mexico spends so little. We spend $1600 per person per yr on defense. Mexico spends about $50. Mexico is a Christian nation and a soft target. Why did they attack us and not Mexico? They have told us why, we just refuse to listen. The answer is simply though no one wants to admit it. They attacked us because of our foreign policies.

I'm all for defense, but since we spend more per capita on defense than any other country it seems we should be the safest. Instead when we listen to the "end of the world hysteria" from Fox News you would think we are the least safe country. Which country will the Muslim terrorists attack next? Mexico or the United States? My bet is it will be the U. S. because Mexico does not have military bases in Muslim countries and is not a pawn of Israel.

I'm moving to Mexico.

Bilbo Baggins

Men's Health Disparities and Health Care

People are lobbying for a government "Office of Men's Health", just as there are for women. This is a mistake. It will only increase the government spending and control over men's health. The government employees will be glad to set up more "offices" and grow their empire. Grants for research will only create more research for academics. No cure for any disease has resulted from the billions of dollars spent by the National Institute of Health. Instead of creating an Office of Men's Health, we should eliminate all the Offices of Women's Health. There are billions of dollars in tax free foundations to do private research better.

We do not need government employees to manage our health care. Before the government required warnings on cigarettes people knew smoking was harmful. As a country boy, without TV and the daily hysteria, I was constantly reminded by my elders that smoking was harmful. I was afraid of the smoking habit long before the government "warned" us.

My Medicare premiums will go up in 2007. Despite a hernia operation, a gall bladder removal, and eye surgery to repair a hole in my retina, during the past five years I have spent more on premiums, co pay, and deductible, than my insurance has paid. This has caused some people, like my neighbor, to drop their insurance coverage and go self insured. He can afford to. There are six million persons uninsured in California. Two million of them make more than $50,000! He is now one of the "uninsured" the liberals refer to. The insurance companies are alarmed at this trend so they will lobby for universal health insurance, forcing my neighbor to buy health insurance that is not worth the risk assessment in his view.

During a recent illness I wanted a prescription of pain medicine refilled. I called my doctor and his receptionist said the doctor wanted me to come in for a visit to check me out. I told her it was immoral that I have to visit a doctor and get his permission for me to buy pain medicine for my body. After that he called in my refill prescription without a visit.

Another doctor prescribed a routine PSA lab test. When I went for the test I thought I would also order a cholesterol test on my own. The lab would not do the cholesterol test without a prescription from the "doctors' monopoly". The doctors' monopoly does not want competition. A cholesterol test kit can now be bought over the counter. They say patients could misread the lab results and not take the proper action. How will patients ever learn to read the results if the doctors keep the information secret and never allow the patients to learn and pass that knowledge on their children?.

Why does a hysterectomy on a 100 pound woman cost 10-20 thousand dollars and the same procedure on a 100 pound dog costs just a few hundred dollars? Of course we put more value on the life of a human than a dog. However there is the malpractice cost to human medicine, a cost that is lobbied for effectively by the Trial Lawyers Association, enforced by the State. Another reason is third party payers, insurance companies. Anytime a third party pays for something the costs are much higher than the free market costs.

The point of my protest is we own our bodies. The doctors' club nor the government club should not control my body. Neither should anyone else. It does not matter if one person controls your body, or if a million control your body, you are their slave.

Bilbo Baggins

Young Adults and Responsibility

One of the oldest human needs is having someone to wonder where you are when you don't come home at night. -Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)

My 18 year old grandson is attending junior college while living at home. The other night he sent a text message to his father that he would be staying overnight at a friend's house. Later his father told him he is 18 and does not have to report all of his decisions, or something to that effect.

I think my grandson was being considerate of his parents. Since his staying out all night was not a pattern, he may have known they would wonder where he was. On the other hand he may have felt like all humans feel, the longing for someone to wonder where we are. "One of the oldest human needs is having someone to wonder where you are when you don't come home at night." -Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)

Young adults want all the perks and privileges of adulthood. Most people want the freedoms of adulthood, but only a small minority of individuals want the responsibility that goes with liberty. Responsibility for ourselves and all of our decisions is a heavy burden. We will try many ways to lighten any burden in our lives, including responsibility.

When a young person starts the transition to adulthood they need caring parents and mentors to help them gain the confidence to assume responsibility for themselves. This process should include telling young adults they are responsible for the outcomes of their decisions. This includes small decisions that may have minor unpleasant outcomes. When such a decision proves to be wrong, the parents should not ridicule or demean the decision. To do so will only make the youth more doubtful about taking responsibility for the outcomes of their decisions. It is permissible for parents to teach children how to critique and inquire about the decisions made.

When parents see real danger in a youth's decision they have a right to offer strong advocacy against the decision. When a youth says he or she is about to embark on a process the parents should offer information, not advice, with the reminder of how to make good choices. Good choices are based on good research and avoiding emotions.

As the youth grows and experience outcomes of their choices, even small choices, they will develop confidences which will lead them to accept responsibility. They will learn that responsibility can be a prized asset, not a burden.

Bilbo Baggins

Secretary Rice in Vietnam

"A tyrant... is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." -- Plato - "The Republic" (c. 380 B.C.)

President Bush declared in Vietnam, "Mission Accomplished":-) Seriously though, it looks like our foreign policy has taken a lighter tone than the threatening one we had in the early years of the current administration. Secretary Rice has been accused of being a lightweight, but her statement about the value of foreign trade is indicative of what our foreign policy should be, free trade with all and alliance with none.

I quibble with one of her arguments, that Vietnam should open up to more religious freedom. Does she want Vietnam to allow Islam to be practiced in Vietnam? I doubt it. I suspect Secretary Rice, a devout Christian, is advocating for the right of Christian and Jewish religions to exist and be promoted in Vietnam. I suspect Vietnam and Chinese leaders see the harm religious beliefs, myths, and superstitions have done throughout history. They also are concerned about the conflicts in their neighbors; Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, that is caused by radical Islam.

Maybe it is time to take a look at the harm organized religion does to a culture. Religion, like sex, should be private. Religion should not be a tax exempt organization where charlatans and con men can hide.

Western philosophers have advocated privacy rights, and group rights. These group rights sometime conflict. When one group wants to impose their will on another group, such as religious groups, it may be time to restrict religious tolerance.

If there are hundreds of small religions then it is easy to be tolerant of other religions. But when one or two become dominate, they try to impose their dogma on others. Much like a large State tries to dominate others.

Bilbo Baggins

-----------------------------------------------------
Rice: Countries should follow Vietnam Sat Nov 18, 5:31 AM ET

North Korea and Myanmar should follow Vietnam's example in joining theinternational community and opening their economies to the rest of theworld, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday. Rice, in a speech to business executives attending an annual Asia-Pacific economic conference, praised Vietnam for its success in reforming its economy and "overcoming the past" in seeking closer ties with the United States. Washington would like to work with North Korea and Myanmar, also known as Burma, but can't until their governments choose to abide by international norms, she said. "If the leaders of North Korea and Burma were to follow the example of Vietnam ... if they make the strategic choice and take the necessary steps to join the international community, it will open a new path of peace and opportunity," Rice said.

She accused the two governments of rejecting cooperation and "isolating their countries from the prosperity of the region.""Nothing will be better for the people of those countries than their integration into an international community that I can assure you would welcome them, too, to a future of hope and prosperity," she said. Rice said the U.S. would continue to raise concerns over issues such as Vietnam's human rights record and its limits on freedom of worship.

Milton Friedman, School Vouchers

Democracy is based upon so childish a complex of fallacies that they must be protected by a rigid system of taboos, else even half-wits would argue it to pieces. H. L. Mencken


Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economists passed away this week. Friedman was a proponent of the free market.

Friedman was a proponent of school vouchers. I was against school vouchers when they were first proposed and I still am. As long as the government pays for something the cost will rise.

Suppose the government gave each person vouchers for other goods or services such as cell phones, computers, clothing, and medical care. The cost of those goods would go up. And imagine how much the cost would go up if the customers were required to buy those services. Students are required to go to school until age 16.

The cost of higher education has increased more than the rate of inflation because the government is heavily involved in the financing of college tuition through the G.I. Bill, student loans, and grants.

If private schools were to receive government school vouchers it would not be long before the private school teachers and administrators would be allies with the government school teacher unions. They both would be lobbying one committee chair in the legislature for more money. The private schools would not have to ask their customers for higher fees, they simply would have the "State" force the customers to pay more. The "State" can only exist by using force.

Bilbo Baggins

Minorities Still Behind

According to a Census report, disparities between minorities and whites are increasing, not decreasing.

Why is the Census Bureau doing these kinds of surveys? The U. S. Constitution says the Census Bureau will count the population every ten years.

Despite trillions of dollars spent during the past four decades and hundreds of government programs to help minorities, the disparities are greater than before. The government programs have failed. So why do people want more of the same things that caused the failures? If a business continued to provide you with poor service you would go elsewhere. So why do people not go elsewhere, the private sector, when government fails?

After the Civil War black families began to recover from slavery. After 5 generations, by 1964, the black families had increased the two parent households. There were private black colleges. A large industry of black family networks were established. Family networks are what made the Jews so successful, despite centuries of discrimination.

Then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 started the slow spiral that would destroy the black families. Soon blacks realized they could play the victim against "Whitey's" guilty. It became easier to survive by collecting government benefits than it was to face the daily grind of the workplace. Failure was accepted in the black culture because it was easy to be a victim.

It is time for the government to stop all programs designed to "Promote the general welfare." These government programs damage the general welfare.

Bilbo Baggins
----------------------------------------------------


The Associated Press
Nov 13, 2006


WASHINGTON - Decades after the civil rights movement, racial disparities in income, education and home ownership persist and, by some measurements, are growing.

White households had incomes that were two-thirds higher than blacks and 40 percent higher than Hispanics last year, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

White adults were also more likely than black and Hispanic adults to have college degrees and to own their own homes. They were less likely to live in poverty.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/

Changing Course in Iraq

When I feel the hand of power lie heavy on my brow, I care but little to know who oppresses me; and I am not the more disposed to pass beneath the yoke because it is held out to me by the arms of a million men. Alexis de Tocqueville


With democrats in power in congress, don't look for any changes in the attempt of the United States to build an empire. The democrats are for the American empire, as are most Americans. We all love to be feared and envied. However, when feared and envied, one always creates enemies filled with rage and or jealousy. No American leader can follow George Washington's advice of free trade with all and alliance with none. Even Washington never had to follow his own advice as it was given on his farewell address. Our leaders have as much haughtiness as a barnyard rooster. They don't get to the top by being meek and humble.

The President's foreign policy advisers should be required to read Dale Carnegie's 1936 classic, "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Carnegie believed it is possible to change other people's behavior by how you react to them. I imagine someone could have changed the behavior of the American terrorist, Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. FBI hostage negotiators always say they can save more lives by negotiating than by the use of force. No where in his small paperback did Carnegie advocate the use of force, or the threat allegedly made by Richard Armitage to a Pakistani official, "We will bomb you back to the stone age." I know you cannot win over most radicals, but leaders we negotiate with are not suicidal.

The invasion of Iraq was for any number of reasons. Take your pick; Revenge, oil, WMDs, God told me to, humanitarianism, or to protect Israel. Saddam Hussein was a secularist who kept the religious fanatics in line, but he hated Israel. He was more a threat to Israel than is Iran. Iraq is closer. Remember the Scud missiles Saddam launched at Israel in the Gulf war.

Even if the first objective of bringing a democratic government to Iraq that is pro U. S. is not met, Iraq is no longer a threat to Israel. The second objective, having military bases in the desert of Iraq, away from the cities, will allow the U.S. to stand guard and prevent any Iraq missiles aimed towards Israel. Our troops may be "redeployed" in Iraq, but our bases in the desert will remain, for decades! May be this WAS the primary objective. These bases will be a buffer between Iran and Israel, and these bases will always be available to launch devastating air strikes against any country in the region that does not play along. A partitioned Iraq is a weaken Iraq and is a smaller threat to our interest in the region.

The Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker may recommend changing the course in Iraq, but the destination remains the same.

Bilbo Baggins

Denis wrote on another discussion group; "Unconventional war is a war of reaction, unless you want to kill the good and the bad all together. That option has been refused, so far, but it maybe gaining advocates."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Killing the good with the bad is gaining advocates? Surely you jest? Maybe not! There may be some who say a good Arab is a dead Arab. Frustration of losing a war makes the losers desperate.

I hope the new working group, headed by James Baker, charged with assessing the Iraq situation and making recommendations for change, will not recommend killing the "good" with the "bad". The bad people do not think they are bad, and many of the "good" people do not think so either.

What would that make us if we start killing "good" people? Suppose we kill half the Muslims in the world, five hundred million, plus or minus a few million, just to show we mean business? Will that stop terror? No. As Ray Kurzweil http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1 said on C-Span about asymmetric warfare, "In the future it will only take one terrorist to do extreme damage". That one terrorist would just as likely come from our own ranks after seeing us kill millions of innocent people. Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber, a lone terrorists who operated for 15 years before being caught. Certainly there would be plenty of terrorists from the descendents of the "good" Muslims we killed. There would also be terrorists from the Hindus, and atheists in Canada, Europe, and Russia. There might even be a few Catholics from Mexico who hate us and simply slip across the border and do damage against our soft targets. Everyone, not just Muslims, would hate us, and we would play the victim and ask, "Why do they hate us? We kill good people to promote democracy and freedom."

How many moderate and liberal Muslims would we kill in our attempt to eliminate terrorist? Those are the people who want a better life, like all humans want to be loved and have a family and a home to gather with their children and grandchildren. Not all Muslims believe in a religion of violence. These are the ones we should be recruiting, not killing.

As new generations of Muslims are born they will want ipods, cell phones, and computers. Women will want the birth control pill and the right to vote. Muslim women will want to be the next Nancy Pelosi.

The internet and technology, like technology of the past, will be the force that will change the Muslim culture more than the force of the largest military the world has ever known. We will not eliminate terrorists acts and remain free at the same time. We should plan, prepare, and anticipate more terrorist acts. There will be copycat terrorist acts by angry American citizens seeking a spot on TV and Youtube. There are too many soft targets for terrorists. There will be more terrorist attacks because we have made too many enemies with our foreign policy.

We should have 'turned' John Walker Lindh into a spy. Instead we jailed him. Bad choice. Revenge and public relations won over pragmatism.

There was a Maoist terror group in Peru called Shining Path. The Peruvian government finally decided the best way to defeat the group was through intelligence. Trying to kill all the members of the terrorist group failed.

Chris Hedges' book, War is the Force That Gives Us Meaning, may apply to a few sociopaths who love war so much they are willing to kill the innocents. There are more people though who find a meaning in life from family, creating art, building instead of destroying, and exploring distant stars.

Power is to be feared. The person wielding the power is to be feared and obeyed, but never respected. Good people wielding power become corrupted. Most people wielding power believe they are good, no matter which side they are on.

Bilbo Baggins

Bilbo Baggins writes from his hobbit hole in Hobbiton, CA

Veterans' Day

O Liberty! how many crimes are committed in thy name! -Jeanne-Marie Roland, revolutionary (1754-1793)

On this Veterans' Day, like all other Veterans' Days, politicians and war lovers will praise those who sacrificed for our freedoms. No critique will be made of how many men died and suffered horribled wounds in unnecessary wars. The praise from politicians is to promote war so future generations of young men will be willing to "sacrifice" their lives in more unnecessary wars.

The late writer William Styron lamented that man was the only animal that killed its own kind, deliberately. So one can ask the question, why do Baboons not kill other Baboons deliberately?

Baboons and other animals fight one on one in hand to hand combat. As soon as one sees defeat, the weaker will run away and escape, alive. When attacked by a cruise missile as man uses, there is little chance to run away and survive before you realize you are defeated. Baboons do not have the mental capacity to operate a rifle, or to launch a cruise missile, or fire artillery. They do not have an opposable thumb that moves in a wide range like the human thumb. If they had the same capacity as man, I am sure Baboons would be forming groups of males to kill other males. Notice they rarely form groups to kill females.

Man kills for various reasons. Greed, jealously, fear, false beliefs, drunken rage, and even pleasure, as demonstrated by serial killers.

Man also kills in groups. Man bands together to kill other groups, all in the name of defense and patriotism and other platitudes. We give all kinds of reasons for killing other humans.

I believe these are all excuses, not the real reason. We often hear about the sacrifice of the soldiers. We even resort to calling any soldier killed in a traffic accident in Iraq a hero. We glorify the dead soldier with military funerals and memorials. This only encourages future generations of young men to take a risk at achieving glory.

We always talk about the what, how, where, and when of war, but seldom do we ask why. Only a rare few inquire as to why man is so violent against his fellow man. "War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" by Chris Hedges gives us insight as to why man enjoys war. However, I think there are many other things that give our lives meaning, without war. Nor does Hedges' book explain why individual men enjoy killing other men outside war.

I suspect the reason men kill other men is simple to eliminate the competition for mating. Nature made men have a strong desire to mate. Nature made it so the strongest male would mate. This is how the species becomes stronger against other species that are also growing stronger. Of course, a cruise missile launched by a weak female can kill the strongest males.

Bilbo Baggins (Charles Tolleson)

Sports Fans

Evil - That which one believes of others. It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake. H.L. Mencken

When I was younger I was a rabid fan of sports. My football team was the former Baltimore Colts. I watched them on Sunday afternoon on a small black and white TV in my Atlanta, GA home. All the players were my heroes and I wanted to be just like them.

In the 60s I moved to Chicago and became a devoted fan of the Chicago Cubs, who lost more often than they won. I would wait with anxiety for their next televised game when I would sit in the basement and watch as I smoked a cigar and drank Old Style beer. When my team lost I was depressed and could not sleep.

As I started traveling I realized teams in other cities would have the same format coverage of their teams. The sportswriters all had the same generic lines about their teams.

I met some professional athletes and realized they were normal people with exceptional skills in their fields, like computer geeks who later became superstars in their fields.

I have lost my enthusiasm for sports. I see professional sports as entertainment. But my interest now is more in the fan behavior, the same radical behavior I used to exhibit. I see the camera pan the fans in the stadium and their hopes and fears are shown on their faces. Some are praying to their god for victory, as the opposing team's fans pray to the same god for their team's victory. God will apparently give victory to the most virtuous team, not the most talented. And the joy and jubilation when victory is achieved is exhilarating. A loss is devastating.

I saw the same exhilaration when our troops invaded Afghanistan. The flag waving and cheering for our team and praying for victory. When victory is not achieved the fans become depressed and they call for a change. A new coach is appointed, and the games continue, and the cheering continues, and the praying continues. On both sides.

Bilbo Baggins
From his hobbit hole in Hobbiton

Utopian Experiments

Man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion. Albert J Nock


Throughout history people have experimented with attempts to create Utopia.
http://www.utopia-britannica.org.uk/ All of these experiments have failed for the simple reason people try to get more from the group than they put in.

The Pilgrims experimented with socialism and it failed. They were only able to feed themselves after they adopted a policy of private property rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan

Still people try for Utopia. The latest is a an attempt at a semi utopia, the Cohousing plan. http://www.cohousing.org/default.aspx Cohousing is private homes, 20 to 40, of like minded people, as were past socialist groups, with community property and a community dining room. Individuals live there and work elsewhere in the free enterprise system. Each member is supposed to contribute to the maintenance of the common grounds and help with the occasionally community dining. These quasi socialist communities may have moderate success because they do not live of the produce of others. Each is required to pay for their own house and living expenses. However, some will not contribute as much as others in their maintenance of the common ground. Like all people, we all hope to benefit from belonging to a group. Our self love, the greatest love, leads us to live a life in an attempt to get the greatest pleasure from life while avoiding the greatest pain.

Utopia is by definition an imaginary place. It does not exist, except in the mind. The most imaginary Utopian place is Heaven. Muslim suicide bombers expect to have 72 virgins when they arrive in Utopian Heaven. They never ask where all the virgins will come from.

Christians have a strong desire to go to Heaven after death. This is the ultimate desire for Utopia. They think Heaven will have no rules and everything will be provided for them. They never ask if they will have freedom of speech or the right to vote. They simple assume their dictator, God, will be a benevolent dictator.

Bilbo Baggins

Post Mortem, 2006 Election

The congress will now be run by Democrats. Do you really expect things to be different? Maybe a little, but, the government will continue to grow and your freedoms will always be threatened. There will be different lobbyists sitting in the office of each committee chair asking for legislation that will micro manage your life, for the sake of the children, or for the sake of something besides you and your freedoms. Everyone that is passionate about their opinion will want that opinion to become law, and the constitution be dammed.

The only way you can remain free is if you have the right to declare your independence from the nation state, state, county or city government. There is no chance of that since both parties need your productivity and taxes. Try buying a few acres of land and declaring your independence as a country and you will realize you are a slave to the State.

The democrats, or republicans, control the political process. They have the money and power to set the rules for elections. They do not want any competition from third party candidates.

Bilbo Baggins

Why I did not Vote

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Goethe

For close to five decades I have watched and participated in the democratic voting process that takes place every two years in the United States. During that time I have watched my freedoms dissipate slowly, one election at a time.

In the beginning only white males who owned land could vote. They had much in common so there was less plunder among them. The first 150 years of the United States has been the most remarkable time in human history when groups lived side by side but still maintained individual freedoms. As more diverse groups, women and minorities, were allowed to vote, the plunder began to increase. With the new culture of victimology in the latter part of the twentieth century, everyone began to plunder everyone else. One political party promised to be our nanny, the other promised to be our chaperon.

I believe a small group of the same race or gender would likely make democracy work better than a diverse group. Do you think any remaining Jews in Iraq will have their votes mean anything? Will a Muslim vote in a Christian nation get what the Muslim desires?

I decided that I would no longer participate in the illusion that voting is supposed to somehow protect my freedoms. I have learned that Bastiat was right, "Democracy is one group plundering another group."

I realized that my cooperation with the whores in congress continued to reduce my freedoms. I could elect all political virgins to the congressional whorehouse and it would not be long until they became whores, selling their favors. My few minutes in a voting booth every two years was an opiate that made me feel like I was influencing legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Legislation is influence by money and lobbyists, or groups that can cause an inundation of letters to be sent to congress. One such group I belong to is; http://www.downsizedc.org/

People will say I have no right to complain if I do not vote. Untrue. The right to complain is an inalienable right. The amount of taxes I pay gives me the right to complain. The number of rules and regulations I suffocate under gives me the right to complain.

The odds of one vote affecting the outcome of an election with millions of voters is very rare. Maybe in a small election of two hundred people one vote might determine the outcome. If ten percent, or one hundred percent, of the people in Florida vote, the outcome can still be only a hundred votes between the winner and loser. In a national election in the United States, the odds of you being killed on the way to the polling booth are greater than the odds your vote will determine the President of the United States.

Still the politicians and those who live off the government exhort us to vote. The biannual ritual gives the media and talking heads a lot of time to sell their advertisers' products predicting the outcome of another "Superbowl" contest American love so much. They simply want us to endorse and legitimize their use of force to take what is mine and tell me how to live, how to talk to females in the workplace, how much I owe in child support, when to wear a seat belt, which tree I can cut down, how to treat my dog, how much of my retirement I can have, and, require me, when I am in agonizing pain, to get permission to buy some pain medicine. A pox on all those who oppose liberty.

Stephen Carter in his book, "The Dissent of the Governed," describes two black evangelical women who change their affiliations from liberal political groups to conservative Christian organizations, explaining that "they preferred a place that honored their faith and disdained their politics over a place that honored their politics and disdained their faith."

Incredible but true! These women are not interested in liberty. They just want someone to respect and honor their beliefs! Sounds like the radical Muslims who want a society governed by the Koran, instead of laws to protect individual rights and freedom.

How can people say they have a choice when money drives politics, not your vote? What kind of a process is it when almost 95% of incumbents win reelection? These incumbents are the ones who take away our freedoms and allow funding for unjust wars. Yet they are reelected over and over. Some of them have been in congress for decades.

Don't vote. It only encourages them to take away more of your freedoms and invade other countries.

Bilbo Baggins

Male Aggression and War

People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt. -Otto von Bismarck, statesman (1815-1898)


Fred Reed has a column, Peeing on Hydrants, about the aggression of males and how this aggression causes war.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

I agree with Reed. He also advocates that females would be less likely to go to war. I think a female government would be socialistic, but less wars would happen. Wars have caused so much suffering for humanity that a socialist government run by women, with fewer wars, might be the lesser of the two evils. Male aggression causes wars. We always hear excuses for war, not the reasons.

Women have been part of the problem of male aggression. Females have a natural tendency to mate with the stronger males. This has always been true in most animal societies. Females will wait around as males fight for dominance, then mate with the victor. This has helped the species of all animals improve their survival by naturally breeding the strongest. This could be continued in a female dominated society by a public sperm donor data base that would use the sperm from the healthiest and brightest males.

In China where parents are allowed to have only one child, more female fetuses are aborted than male fetuses. This is creating a time bomb. In the future there will be gangs of males killing each other in order to find a mate.

India also has a culture that prefers male children to female children. "Daughters are generally considered a net liability: they often require a dowry, they leave their natal homes after marriage, and their labor is devalued. The result is a strong preference for sons. In its most extreme form, this preference leads to female infanticide and, more recently, to sex-selective abortion. The preference for sons is readily apparent in the relative neglect of female children, who are weaned earlier than males, receive smaller quantities of less nutritious food and less medical care, and are more likely to be removed from school. This inequitable treatment continues into women's adult lives. Women eat after men, and even during pregnancy their diet is typically inadequate. A high proportion of women receive no treatment for illness; many use home remedies or traditional healers, while men are more likely to receive modem medical and institutional care." http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/hnp/population/iwhindia.htm

Polygamous societies have many young males without a mate. This creates frustration for the young males. Polygamy will work well in a society that has more females than males.

Male aggression is why there will continue to be violence and gang wars, even if the nation states agree to eliminate State sponsored wars.

One possible solution is to have a male female population ratio of more females than males. Males would have a better chance of finding a mate. If there were 3 females or more for 1 male, the competition for a female mate would diminish significantly, reducing male combatatives. Women that could not find a mate, polygamy would be allowed, could have access to a sperm donor bank where sperm from the healthiest and brightest males would be selected.

With a larger female to male ratio it is likely the governments would become more socialistic. This would be a danger to individual liberty, but it would be better than the death, debt, and destruction wrought by the aggression of males.

Bilbo Baggins

Victor David Hanson

November 03, 2006

Before Iraq- The assumptions of a forgetful chattering class are badly off the mark. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online

What is written about Iraq now is exclusively acrimonious. The narrative is the suicide bomber and IED, never how many terrorists we have killed, how many Iraqis have been given a chance for something different than the old nightmare, or how a consensual government has withstood enemies on nearly every front.

Long forgotten is the inspired campaign that removed a vicious dictator in three weeks. Nor is much credit given to the idealistic efforts to foster democracy rather than just ignoring the chaos that follows war as we did after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, or following our precipitous departure from Lebanon and Somalia. And we do not appreciate anymore that Syria was forced to vacate Lebanon; that Libya gave up its WMD arsenal; that Pakistan came clean about Dr. Khan; and that there have been the faint beginnings of local elections in the Gulf monarchies.
Continued at National Review Online
------------------------------
I don't think so Mr. Hanson. The chattering class are not so "forgetful". They remember the Vietnam war and all the other unnecessary invasions of other countries by the United States.

"Losing heart and blaming others" is typical human behavior when illusions are destroyed. The masses in America wanted revenge after 9/11 so the crowd was in a frenzy, waving their flags and marching to war to the sound of trumpets and- Onward Christian Soldiers.

The crowd has come to their senses. If you live long enough you will see a new crowd in the next generation who fails to learn from history, and they to will go marching off to war with grand illusions.

Your writings often justify "our" wars on moral grounds. As a erudite historian you should know better than to promote war on humanitarian grounds. You will continue to write and get rich promoting war. Millions have died at the hands of humanitarians and their wars, as written so well by Isabel Paterson in her essay, The Humanitarian with the Guillotine.

As a young man I loved war. I was not a reader, but I was enamored with the propaganda movies of WW II. Later in life I began to read war novels and histories of war. I read the biographies of Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander the Great, and many more.

The more I read about war the more I felt drenched in blood. I started seeing all the nebulous excuses for war, but not the reasons. A fictional war, The Battle of Troy (The Iliad) originated years earlier over a single woman, Helen. WW I was over the assassination of one man, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, which led to ten million dead, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, which led to WW II.

The war with Japan was over Japan's expansion, at the same time the United States and Europeanss countries had colonies and military bases throughout the Pacific and, military personnel in China.

The more blood drenched I became from reading about war, the more convinced I became that most wars could have been prevented with better negotiations and free trade. We rarely hear of failed negotiations by our "statesmen" using bravado and threats of, "We will bomb you back into the stone age."

Bilbo Baggins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=38
By Isabel Paterson Reprinted from The God of the Machine by Isabel Paterson, published in 1943.

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends. This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members were habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. Destruction is so easy that even a minority of persistently evil intent could shortly exterminate the unsuspecting majority of well-disposed persons. Murder, theft, rapine, and destruction are easily within the power of every individual at any time. If it is presumed that they are restrained only by fear or force, what is it they fear, or who would turn the force against them if all men were of like mind? Certainly if the harm done by willful criminals were to be computed, the number of murders, the extent of damage and loss, would be found negligible in the sum total of death and devastation wrought upon human beings by their kind. Therefore it is obvious that in periods when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object. When they are not the immediate executants, they are on record as giving approval, elaborating justifications, or else cloaking facts with silence, and discountenancing discussion.

Obviously this could not occur without cause or reason. And it must be understood, in the above passage, that by good people we mean good people, persons who would not of their own conscious intent act to hurt their fellow men, nor procure such acts, either wantonly or for a personal benefit to themselves. Good people wish well to their fellow men, and wish to guide their own actions accordingly. Further, we do not here imply any “transvaluation of values,” confusing good and evil, or suggesting that good produces evil, or that there is no difference between good and evil, or between good and ill-disposed persons; nor is it suggested that the virtues of good people are not really virtues.

Then there must be a very grave error in the means by which they seek to attain their ends. There must even be an error in their primary axioms, to permit them to continue using such means. Something is terribly wrong in the procedure, somewhere. What is it? Certainly the slaughter committed from time to time by barbarians invading settled regions, or the capricious cruelties of avowed tyrants, would not add up to one-tenth the horrors perpetrated by rulers with good intentions.

As the story has come down to us, the ancient Egyptians were enslaved by Pharaoh through a benevolent scheme of ever normal granaries. Provision was made against famine; and then the people were forced to barter property and liberty for such reserves which had previously been taken from their own production. The inhuman hardness of the ancient Spar-tans was practiced for a civic ideal of virtue. The early Christians were persecuted for reasons of state, the collective welfare; and they resisted for the right of personality, each because he had a soul of his own. Those killed by Nero for sport were few compared to those put to death by later emperors for strictly moral reasons.

Gilles de Retz, who murdered children to gratify a beastly perversion, killed no more than fifty or sixty in all. Cromwell ordered the massacre of thirty thousand people at once, including infants in arms, in the name of righteousness. Even the brutalities of Peter the Great had the pretext of a design to benefit his subjects.

Continued at; http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=38

The Rats are Abandoning Ship

Los Angles Times, November 4, 2006. Richard N. Perle, the former Pentagon advisor regarded as the intellectual godfather of the Iraq war, now believes he should not have backed the U.S.-led invasion, and he holds President Bush responsible for failing to make timely decisions to stem the rising violence, according to excerpts from a Vanity Fair, January 2007, magazine interview.
----------------------------------------

The rats are abandoning the sinking ship. They are trying to save their legacy. After Vietnam the people to blame for the war was President Johnson and Secretary McNamara. In the future the only culprits for the disaster in Iraq will be President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. Everyone will forget the war frenzy of millions of Americans prior to the invasion, when everyone was waving the flag and sounding the trumpets to kill. They will not remember the enthusiastic cheering for our team in the "Super Bowl" played in Iraq, played on TV, as our army moved hundreds of miles in a few days, and our leaders pontificated, "The ghost of Vietnam had been exorcised."

If Iraq is a disaster then history should judge President Bush harshly. If you are the President of the United States with all the power and perks, then you deserve the glory for a job well done, and the blame for any disaster caused by your decisions. There are many ways to play the chess game of international politics. President Bush chose the favorite chess move of most people with power, force, with all the unseen consequences of war. War brings three Ds; death, debt, and destruction.

Bilbo Baggins

Democrats or Republicans?

Don't look for any major change in the federal government if the democrats win the congress in 2006. Whether it is the Patriot Act or the Environmental Act, the government will continue to be your nanny or your chaperon. There will be a lot of finger pointing and grandstanding for the 2008 election, but the government register will continue to grow, and we will continue our empire building. Arrogance and hubris are common maladies, especially for super powers.

This is a link to an article by R.W. Bradford, that has a graph (above) of the government spending from 1960-2003.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/bradford-reagan.html

Democrats and Republicans both increased the size of government and reduced your freedoms. The author is arguing that government spending increased under Reagan. So did the size of the Federal Register, by 19,000 pages per year!

No matter who is governing, people have a desire to belong in a group. That group starts out as a family. It progresses to a tribe, village and nation state. Along the way there is the powerful pull for the group to worship a god, emperor, or nation state.

These groups always fail. Even the smallest groups fail. As the group gets larger it is difficult to tell who is helping the group by being producers and who is hurting the group by not producing. Throughout history there has only been a short time when a nation state promoted individualism over collectivism. That was the first 150 years of the United States. Since that brief time in the world's nation states, the United States has tended more toward socialism, with hundreds government programs.

Why do people have the urge to belong to a group? Is it for self preservation only? Does each of us know we have a dark spot in our heart and we realize we are the only animal species that has a desire to kill it's own kind. We therefore seek the safety and security of a group. What we fail to realize is groups usually turn on themselves and kill the members of the group.

Bilbo Baggins

Immigration

"One strand of a woman's hair can draw more than a hundred pair of oxen." James Howell, 1599-1666

Is it moral to punish someone who travels a thousand miles, some though a hot desert, to find a job? Or should this person be rewarded? Yet we punish the person who makes the long journey to better himself and family, and reward the person who will not travel a few miles on a city bus to take the same job the long distance traveler will take. Anyway, in a few generations the Mexican worker will not want to get out of bed and take any nearby job either. That's what happens when you reward the non producers by taxing the producers. The welfare society destroys the incentive to produce.

My son just had a house built. He had all kinds of small problems with quality and customer service from, white native American males. As soon as he moved into the house he contracted to have the yard landscaped. He assumed the contractor hired illegal Mexicans because they were so polite, responsive and hard workers. He could not believe the difference. He is a small business owner. He said if green Martians came here looking for work and they could work better than the illegal Mexicans, the Martians would "take jobs away" from the Mexicans.

Our homeowner association hires a landscape company to take care of the common area. I'm sure the workers are illegal because they never rest. They are polite and work like bees. When I walk my dog in the city parks I see the city employees maintaining the parks. They work about as fast as a Sloth. The city employees have better pay and benefits and can retire young because they have a union, and a monopoly. If there was a true free market, some of the illegal workers would get higher pay and the government workers would get lower pay. The free market is just and fair. It does not discriminate.

I get better work and cheaper work from the people that maintain our common area. Still I have indirect costs that requires me to provide for their schools and hospital care.

I wonder what kind of service United Airlines would provide if they could hire illegal senoritas as FAs:-)

John Galt

Delusions of Crowds

Many a man thinks he is buying pleasure, when he is really selling himself to it. -Benjamin Franklin


Throughout history there have been delusions of crowds. Get rich schemes like Tulip Mania have always fired the emotions of the crowd.

The Crusades were another delusion. Peasants had only the Priest to guide them in medieval Europe. A shooting star, or terrible storm, would signal to the peasants the end was near. The crowds wanted to go to the Holy Land before the world came to an end. Despite the crowd's enthusiasm and suffering on their pilgrimages, the world did not end, and there was no Rapture.

The Global Warming crowd is now in the same frenzy as the crusaders and the tulip buyers. The global warming crowd sees the end of the world unless something drastic is done. Millions follow the global warming crowd hysteria just like the European peasants following Peter the Hermit to Jerusalem. The millions who are afraid the earth is going to die never question the science or the purpose of the predictions.

The researchers who tell us the earth is warming receive their funds from private donations to tax free organizations or funds from federal grants. There are 75 private organizations that are concerned only about Global Warming. It is in their best interest to keep the crowd frightened so the donations will continue. Without the donations the staff would have to find other work.

Those researchers who receive federal grants for research would lose their funding if they said there is no threat of global warming. They scare the crowd to insure the grants continue so the researchers can travel to exotic places and play outdoors taking the temperature.

Though the Crusades started a thousand years ago, there is a crowd of believers today who still believe Jesus Christ will return to the earth and save good people from the horrors and evil of man and earth's natural disasters. The greater the dangers of the day the greater need for Jesus to return. I asked one believer if man could have peace on earth without Jesus returning and he said "No, Jesus must return to bring peace and salvation to the people on earth." This man perpetuates war and conflict so to have an excuse to believe Jesus' returning is necessary. He needs danger and conflict to have sins that will be atoned for.

Crowds used to be local; tribes and villages. Then the printing press was invented. Tribes began to trade with other tribes. Oceans were crossed. Religions became more numerous. Races intermarried. Radio, newspapers, trains, airplanes, TV, and the internet created different crowds. Political crowds emerged. Ideas spread like a contagious virus.

Now we have crowds of democrats and crowds of republicans. There are crowds of environmentalist, abortion rights, anti-abortion, animal rights, universal health care crowds, and many others. All of these crowds suffer from what Charles Mackay described in his "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" http://www.econlib.org/library/mackay/macExContents.html

Individuals go crazy at a lower rate than crowds. A crowd goes crazy quicker than an individual and comes to its senses slowly, one person at a time. Some crowds erupt into violence that ends in a few hours. Other crowd behavior lasts for thousands of years, like Christianity and Islam. These crowds will also come to their senses when their delusions are destroyed. It may take another thousand years, but, there are many more atheists now than there were a thousand years ago. The crowds of Christianity and Islam are coming to their senses, slowly, one at a time.

Bilbo Baggins