Why Women Should Rule the World, by Dee Dee Myers

"I will feel equality has arrived when we can elect to office women who are as incompetent as some of the men who are already there." Maureen Reagan

Former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers has written a book, "Why Women Should Rule the World". An excerpt is here. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23308727/?GT1=10856

The title is likely to increase sales, but the subtle meaning in the word "Rule" is that people have the desire to rule others. Socialists, Humanitarians, and Fascists all want to rule. To Myers and others who want to rule, I have this to say, no one is fit to rule me, not men, or women.

God made a mistake when he created two genders. He should have created only one gender that could reproduce itself. He also should have created everyone smart so we would not have to spend our youth in government schools. He should have created beachfront property for everyone. Had God done these things we would have less conflict.

God did not create a utopia. He created good and evil. He created wretchedness and conflict. People like Ms Myers think they can correct all of God's mistakes.

Myers writes, "but the small numbers make it hard to predict just how things would change if in every region of the world, every level of government was half women."

If half were women and half were men you would have a government in conflict, just like marriages, where half the people in marriages are women and half are men.

A better way would be to have only one gender vote in one state and the other gender be allowed to vote in a neighboring state. Then each gender would be free to voluntarily live in a state that took full responsibility for their authority to set policies. http://f4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/women-only-voting-states.html Men could move to a state that only allowed women to vote. They would do so only if the market was conducive to entice them. Women voters would seek policies that made it conducive for men to live in their state. The same would apply in states were only men could vote. They would set policies that made women want to live in the male only voting state.

By the way Ms Myers, women are more than 51% of the voters. If men have mismanaged the world affairs, it is because the female voters are enablers.

Charles Tolleson

Kosovo Independence

"People can secure the means of existence in two ways: by creating them or by stealing them". Frederic Bastiat, Economic Harmonies

Kosovo just declared its independence. This is a new Muslim state.Counting Kosovo there are 193 countries in the world. The smallest is the Vatican at 0.2 square miles, followed by Monaco at 0.7 square miles. Here is a list of the 17 smallest countries in the world. http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm

There are some Serb Christians still living in Kosovo. They are unhappy.

If the Albanians Muslims living in Kosovo can declare their independence from Serbia, and I think they have the right to do so, then the Christian Serbians living in the new Kosovo should have the right to declare their independence from Kosovo, even if they live in a small town or village, and the United States should recognize their small country.

I was asked if I thought the state of Israel had a right to exist. I do not think it has a right to exist just because some powerful members of the United Nations Security Council, out of WW II guilt for not preventing the holocaust, decided Israel should be created. Many Jews owned private land before Israel was established. These Jews certainly had a right to declare their independence and call their country Israel. At the same time many Palestine Arabs who own private land have a right to declare their independence and call their state Palestine, or anything else.

What if the Amish people in the United States dislike how the laws of the United States treat the Amish? The Amish people who own private land should have the right to declare their independence and create their own small country. If a few Amish farmers who own their land want to remain part of the United States, they should be allowed to declare their independence from the new Amish country and remain apart of the U.S.

Why do Russians not want Kosovo to be independent? Do Russians living in Moscow own land in Kosovo? If they do then they should be able to declare their independence from Kosovo and join Russia.

Why does Russian President Putin refuse to recognize Kosovo? He simply would rather preside over a large country than a small country.

The Russians living in Moscow do not want to see their country become smaller. The same thing happened in the United States when the southern states declared their independence. President Lincoln did not want to preside in the reduction in size of the United States. Presidents want to see their empires grow.

Group behavior is also a reason for wanting to keep the group large. The larger your group the safer you may feel. A large country is less likely to be invaded than a small country. A large country offers one a greater chance to access food and resources for survival that may be thousands of miles away.

It would be difficult to find a habitable spot on the globe that has not been invaded and occupied by someone who was not the original inhabitants. This has created conflicts. When the human population was small, groups used to move to vacant land. As the human population increased, land was fought for. Recent technology allowed written legal title to show land ownership and avoid taking land that belongs to another. This written legal title now allows people to declare their independence and be owned only by them, not by someone living a thousand miles away.

You say this will lead to many small states that will be unmanageable. I disagree. I hope there will be thousands of small states. Small states will find it to their benefit to trade with other small states. They will buy their government services; passports, treaties, protection, and other necessary services, from private providers like IBM or Allstate. Or they may sign treaties with other countries to provide government services. This will make governments compete for customers, thus improving government services.

If President Putin wants to enlarge his empire, he should compete for customers like private companies compete for customers.

When a man is allowed to declare his independence, he will no longer go to the polls with the delusion he is in control of his destiny.

Charles Tolleson

Northern Illinois University and Guns

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

My daughter graduated from Northern Illinois U. a few years ago.   On the day of the shooting she was in Dekalb on business. I told her it was time to arm the teachers who want to train and be armed. And it is time to arm some of the seniors, or graduate students. After all, we get the cops from the same society we get our teachers and students, and we let cops carry guns.

It must have made the students wonder what was happening as the shooter kept firing. After all, the students were in a gun free zone.

The people living in Illinois must also feel safe knowing that no one anywhere in IL, except some government employees, are allowed to carry guns. We think by acting like sheep the shepherd will protect us. When was the last time you had a police officer following you around to protect you? Why do the police tell you to risk your life in order for the police to have a monopoly on the protection racket? Maybe it's because they like their pay and benefits and do not want any competition.

If we prohibit guns, why will the government employees need guns? After all, no one will have a gun, right? The police can use tasers to subdue violent people. Let us prohibit guns for all people, except the military and national guard, who can use their guns only in training or to repel invaders.

Making guns illegal will only make the price of guns go up, like drugs, and like drugs, guns will still exist.

I'm sure the Jews in Germany under the Nazis wished they had guns. I'm sure the American slaves wished they had guns.

Charles Tolleson

Barack Obama, bringing people together

"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots". Barbara Ehrenreich


Barack Obama is campaigning and saying he is the candidate for president who can "bring people together". Obama is a good orator who is inspiring people. People like to be inspired. It makes them feel good. During each election cycle we hear political candidates advocate their ability to "bring people together". I wonder what they mean by this cliché?

President Bush said in an interview with David Horwitz on Salon.com in May 1999, "I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another".

They want us to think they will make the government and society a happy place where there will be no dissent or bickering. They want us to think they can get people to agree on the right way to do things.

Does Barack Obama want us all to come together and give up our guns? Does he want us all to come together and worship in the same church, belong to the same party, and agree to his socialist legislation?

I believe this "bringing people together" is a euphemism for getting people to be compliant and sheepish. The candidate simply wants the masses to be cooperative while the politicians do as they wish. The politicians simply do not want any dissent. Dissent means they have to listen. The politicians want to be like the old sea captains who never tolerated dissent, and had the authority to lash a crewman.

Marx, Lenin, Mao and others all had the same message. Come and let us work together for a greater good. In other words, stop resisting me.

Barack Obama sounds like a noble statesman. If he is, he will not change politics, politics will change him.

Obama's election to President of the United States would send a message to the rest of the world that the United States Constitution is still working. His election would send a message to millions of young minorities that failure is no longer an option. His election will inspire those young minorities, but they will be disappointed to find their inspiration is hampered by the government regulations imposed by Obama's legislation. They will find there is no need for inspiration and productivity because Obama and other government politicians will see to it that non producers are rewarded and producers are punished.

We need dissent. We do not need to go along, to get along.

Thank goodness for dissent. Dissent saves lives. In 1979 United Airlines had an aircraft accident. The cockpit voice recorder indicated there was not enough dissent from the subordinate crewmembers. To encourage junior crewmembers to speak up and dissent when they saw something wrong, United Airlines started a program called "Command Leadership Resource Management", CLR, which later became "Crew Resource Management", CRM. Cockpit crewmembers are now encouraged to speak up when they think something is unsafe.

CRM has become standard training in the airline industry. It is being taught to doctors and health care workers, encouraging nurses to speak out when they see something wrong with a patient's care, or a surgery in process.

The same dissent works in a democracy. I disagree with our foreign policy, but I would hate to silence those who support our foreign policy. I just might be wrong.

Charles Tolleson

Barrack Obama's Ecomomic Plan

"Economics is the great brick wall; a thousand feet thick, that limits the maniacal dreams, benevolent or malevolent, of the political imagination." Lew Rockwell

Barrack Obama says he wants to spend 200 billion over the next ten years to create new jobs. I did not know Obama was that wealthy. I suspect he plans on taking your money, and spending it on projects that will help his contributors. I suspect one of his contributors would be the National Asphalt Pavement Association. http://www.hotmix.org/

Obama will make the people think HE can actually create jobs. No one will think that you can create jobs by spending your own money on things that are important to you. Why should some politician decide what is important to you?

Obama says his plan will create two million new jobs. What he fails to say is his plan will also create inflation, thus lowering the standard of living for millions of retirees. It will raise the price of homes, which will then cause a hue and cry from politicians and humanitarians that we need to build more "affordable" housing.

The unemployment rate in Dec 2007 was 5.0%. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp Economic theorists say when unemployment decreases, interest rates and inflation increase.

Never doubt for whom the government bells toll. They toll for thee.

Charles Tolleson

Congress blamed for rise in college tuition

"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in the students." Unknown

The House of Representatives just caused the cost of college to increase! They want Congress to pay for poor people to go to college.

Not really. Congress keeps their personal money. They will confiscate money, by force, from others, to pay for college for the poor. This simply means more buyers, demanding more, from the current suppliers. Unless Congress is suddenly going to increase the number of colleges and professors, the law of supply and demand means the cost will increase.

College costs have been increasing since the government got involved with the GI Bill after WW II. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12710 "The growth in federal student aid makes this clear. According to data from the College Board, real federal aid -- including grants, loans, and tax credits -- ballooned from $48.7 billion in the 1996-97 academic year to almost $86.3 billion in 2006-07, a 77 percent leap. On a per-pupil basis, aid per full-time equivalent student -- most of which came through Washington -- rose from $6,627 to $9,499, a 43 percent increase. Meanwhile, the per-pupil cost of tuition, fees, room and board rose 29 percent at private four-year schools, from $25,031 to $32,307, and 41 percent at public four-year institutions, from $9,657 to $13,589. In other words, college prices kept rising because aid made sure they could."

I used the GI Bill in 1956. I was given $110 per mo. After I married I received $135 per mo.

What happens when everyone has a college degree? Then Congress and the humanitarians will panic and say we have to get everyone an advanced degree.

The cause of war has been plunder. It has been easier to plunder than produce. Under democracy plunder still happens. Who are the plunderers of your dollars towards college tuitions? The list is long; American Association of University Professors, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Association of College Administration Professionals, The Association of College & University Policy Administrators, and the American College Personnel Association, to name a few.

These plunderers go to Congress to ask the government mob to confiscate your dollars and give them to the colleges. Congress is happy to plunder from you if it means members of the congress mob get to keep their elaborate lifestyles.

If Congress wanted to decrease the cost of college tuition they should convert abandoned commercial real estate into colleges and allow volunteers to teach. This would increase the supply, thus lowering the cost. There are millions of retired people, military and professional, who would love to pass on their knowledge to young students.

I predict the demise of colleges as we know them. They are pricing themselves out of the market and will be replaced with online learning. After that, in the not too distant future, all knowledge will be accessible to the brain from a small storage device. The only remaining need for colleges will be as a place for government indoctrination.

Bilbo Baggins

Women only voters

The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. Milton Friedman

I fantasize about a political and social experiment that will determine voter preferences, and male and female political desires.

My fantasy would have one state allow only females to vote. A neighboring state would only allow males to vote. I would like to see the policies and programs of the two different states that only allow voting based on gender.

Would the state that allows female only voting attract more females, or fewer females? Would males avoid living in the state where only females could vote? And in the state that allows only male voting, would females avoid that state?

My prediction is males would avoid the female voting states more than females would avoid the male voting states. Each gender would do what is in their best interest. Females might move to a male voting state simply to find a mate, thinking there would be more males to choose from to provide security for her and her children. The same thing might attract males to a female voting state, thinking there might be more females to select from. In each state there would be a demand for skills offered by each gender. Neither gender would be able to enslave the other gender because that gender could leave and go to the neighboring state.

Another fantasy I have is two neighboring states where one state allows only poor people to vote and the neighboring state allows only rich people to vote. What would happen to the populations? I believe the market would work. People would put aside their political principals for their economic benefits. Poor people would move to the state where only rich people could vote because the rich people will need vendors and suppliers of goods and services. This need will create opportunities for the poor people. Poor people will put their economic needs ahead of their political principles.

Another political fantasy of mine would be to have two neighboring states in which only private business owners could vote in one state, and in the other state private business owners could not vote. Both groups of voters would be looking out for their best interest.

The private business owners would pass laws to reduce competition and make profits easier. The business owners would be looking out for themselves. They might have a high minimum wage imposed on all business just to make it difficult for start up businesses to hire the unskilled at a much lower cost. The form of government that would evolve with only business owners voting would be fascism.

In the state where private business owners could not vote, the voters would have to make it worthwhile for private owners to exist. A more likely scenario would be the State would own all businesses. All workers would be state employees. Their power would be immense. High wages and benefits would prevail. Short store hours and poor service for the customers would be normal. This system would be completely communistic. It would be the ultimate collective. It too would fail like thousands throughout history have failed.

Both fascism and Communism fail because they punish production and reward non production.

These experiments would prove that people will put their economic interests ahead of their desire to vote. If they vote they will vote their fears, dogmas, and economics before they will vote for liberty and individual self reliance. This is why the founders created a republic instead of a straight democracy.


These experiments would also show that democracies with universal suffrage create conflicts between groups. Each group goes to the polls trying to plunder the other groups.

Charles Tolleson