Yeah, limited blogging until at least the end of this week. Possibly forever. *shrug*

Anyway, I heard an Orlando Magic fan had his season ticket revoked because he called Dikembe Mitumbo a monkey. Apparently that’s racist. I’ve had a lot of racial slurs thrown at me over the years, including pretty much everything you could call a muslim or a black person (which is funny, because I’m neither), but I’d never even heard of monkey being used as a racial epithet.

In fact, my nickname all through highschool and college was monkey. This might be because I’m an extremely gangly bastard and can touch my knees without bending over.

I’m not much of a sports fan, but one thing I know about Mitumbo is that he’s pretty much known for one thing: blocked shots. He’s not a bad rebounder either. Blocking shots and rebounding are two of the only basketball skills I’m mediocre instead of miserable at. One thing we have in common is being gangly bastards. It’s conceivable that he was called ‘monkey’ because of that.

Why I mention this is because it’s an example of how special protection laws erode the basic liberties we hold so dear. Whether it’s muslims in europe or minorities and gays here the end result is a limitation of the 1st amendment. Which I find rather strange given that it seems to be the only one leftists–the ones often behind such legislation–seem to remember exists.

This fan of an opposing team hurled an insult at a particular player. To my understanding, this is a regular occurrence. I would suspect that very few of us think insults should be illegal. Is calling someone a monkey somehow worse than calling him a loser or a moron? What if this fan had called Dirk Nowitski (also gangly) a monkey? Would he have been in the wrong then? No?

Strange. So insulting a white guy by calling him a monkey ain’t a big deal, but insulting a black guy by calling him one is? Seems odd to me. The black guy wasn’t hurt, his reputation wasn’t tarnished. I fail to see a crime. And even if there was one, how was it worse than if the player had been white?

Furthermore, they’ve managed to give this word a power it didn’t have before they made such a fuss. They’ve managed to turn a simple allusion, a simple comparison, into something hurtful. I wonder how many people like me would never have even thought monkey was racist before they heard the term.

I’m not a fan of special protection laws (such as ’sexual harassment’ or ‘age discrimination’ laws) as they take all objectivity out of the equation. It’s no longer important what actually happened but rather how someone interpreted it. Calling Nick a monkey wasn’t racist, because Nick didn’t interpret it that way. Calling Mitumbo one was, because he did. I realize moral relativism is ascendant in the children in adult bodies who are quickly claiming this world as its own, but is it really so hard to see the untenability in a justice system where the definition of crime is so capricious?

So. This is an ugly time in our Nation’s history. Far uglier than the Civil War and Reconstruction. Much worse than the Depression–although the seeds of today were planted by FDR, his four freedoms, and even moreso his massive ego.

Claire Wolfe puts it succinctly in the opening lines of 101 Things To Do ’til The Revolution when she says:

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

That is exactly the situation we’re in. At this point it is all but impossible for one to vote for a party that supports the essential American ideal of liberty. The Libertarians who perhaps come closest still fail to acknowledge the basic pragmatism espoused by the founding fathers and which common sense when applied to classical liberal theory would suggest.

A vote for the Democrats is the same as a vote for Old Europe. Also known as the road to serfdom, socialist collapse, and totalitarianism. To vote for the Republicans is to vote for a strange combination of plutocracy, social authoritarianism, and a brand of big government all their own. Democrats fail to understand that if it requires coercion to maintain, then it can’t really be freedom. They also strangely see no problem with giving Government control of our economic lives, all the while whining about the problems faced by those without it. Republicans are unable to separate their personal moral views from their political stances. And neither party is able to understand the difference between political and economic capitalism.

Both parties are broken. The left irretrievably so seeing as the very definitions of important words like ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ they operate under are flawed. Castles in the sand and all that. Democrats’ minds inhabit a world in which physics, biology, and basic mathematics do not obey the rules of the physical universe. They live in a world where ’socialism is a good idea in theory’. Despite the fact that it’s at the theoretic level that socialism is most flawed, failing to take into account the basic self interest inherent in all animals.

Republicans? I’d give them slightly better odds but not much better. This might be a personal bias though. Like most minarchists I’m more sympathetic to conservatism than neosocialism since although we push for legalization of many things conservatives stand staunchly against, many or most of us willingly choose not to partake in such activities. Firmly wedded to personal responsibility as we are, the liberties of excess are not objectives we are likely to pursue.

So what do we do with one of the few tools left to us? Our vote? Well, we’ve all heard the basic arguments, which basically boil down to two:

1) The Republicans are still better than the Democrats, so we should vote for them.

2) The Republicans need to be sent a message so we should…

2a. Vote Libertarian
2b. Vote Democrat

3) The political machine is completely broken so we should refuse to vote at all.

4) Give the Democrats some power so they can hang themselves with their own rope.

I think Michael Savage has taken option 3 (if you can overlook his egotism, he’s actually fun to listen to). Boortz has rejected option 1, but I don’t know if he’s committed to anything else.
Personally I’ll be using option 2a and 3 depending on availability and palatability.

Just a couple days ago I reminded people that this is not an either/or proposition. And that’s what we need to keep in mind. This isn’t about choosing between Republicans and Democrats but architecting the birth of a new party or three. About changing things from the top to the bottom. Perhaps the new parties will keep the old names, perhaps they won’t. The fact that the Democrats can call themselves the ‘Party of Jefferson’ proves that names are as ephemeral and irrelevant as can be imagined.

Not everyone will choose the same option. Not everyone should choose the same option. I will say that Option 4 is just plain stupid. The thing about government power is that once granted it is almost impossible to revoke. Bush, like the past 70 years of presidents, is operating under the ‘emergency powers’ that FDR bequeathed upon himself. His Rural Electrification Administration is still in operation. Which is strange. I’ve lived in West Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and rural New York state, and have never had a problem with access to electricity. It’s just possible that that particular branch of government has outlived its always dubious usefulness.

Choosing Option 4 in other words is to accept that revolution–a true revolution–will be the only recourse. Whether it could be avoided in any case is doubtful. Still, as a young man who hopes to raise children as soon as he finds a worthy vessel, I’d like to at least try for a peaceful solution.

The other options boil down to a combination of geography, the individual candidate, and personal principle. I refuse to vote for a Republican. I can do this because I live in what was the Reddest state in the union back in the 2004 election. I’m also lucky enough to call Porkbusting Senator Tom Coburn my own. I get to have my cake and eat it too. Were I to live in a borderline state like Ohio or Wisconsin, my personal convictions might have some negative side effects.

My vote isn’t meaningless, but it is futile. Even if the libertarian party presented me a candidate who’s head wasn’t in the clouds, a candidate with a strong and popular following, some Republican who displayed ‘Christian Family Values’ would still win. But like I said, my vote isn’t meaningless. Voting for an LP official would send a message. 5% of the vote this cycle, 10% next cycle. It would remind the people at large that there could be a viable alternative. And it would remind the Republicans that they aren’t the only option for non-socialists. And there is a certain comfort in knowing that even though I’d be ‘throwing my vote away’, at least I wouldn’t be abetting a Democrat in gaining a seat.

In a similar way, the same goes for those living in California, New York, or any of the other neosocialist bastions. They similarly have little chance of changing the tides. They are free to vote for an alternative candidate with a clear conscience. And that is what they ought to be doing without a doubt.

Borderline states, it’s you who have the real dilemma. When elections hang on margins that measure in the low thousands, your vote does make a measurable difference. Not voting for a Republican could change the election. Then again, voting for a Republican doesn’t quite convey your disapproval of the GOP. And then there’s the danger of the message being interpreted wrongly. The GOP could always take your decision not to vote for them as a signal that they need to turn even farther left. All I can tell you is that just remember that Dems in power means yet more liberty all but irretrievably lost.

Maverick candidates offer the best of both worlds. Republican candidates who support the FairTax plan, are more socially liberal, or firmly stand against the growth in the Executive Branch are people we can give our full support to. Unfortunately they’re an all too rare breed.

Nope, I don’t have an all encompassing solution to this quagmire. And there is no one-size-fits-all voting strategy. Human power struggles are far too messy. Which is probably why the Founders sought to limit the power of government so much when they created the law of the land. Sadly, we forgot their lesson. And this is the mess we’ve inherited.

All I can hope for is that we tread carefully and prudently. Whether we merely prolong the seemingly inevitable or somehow manage to revive our ailing nation, either would be better than hastening its demise.

Ben Folds Five - Philosophy

Go ahead you can
Laugh all you want
I got my philosophy
Keeps my feet on the ground
And I trust it like the ground
And thats why my philosophy
It keeps me walking when Im falling down
I see that there is evil
And I know that there is good
And the inbetweens
I never understood
Wont you look at me
Im crazy
But I get the job done
Yeah Im crazy
But I get the job done

I find it hard to function without philosophy. Not that I always think things through on a metaphysical level before I do them. But that I can’t help but reflect upon the things I see and do in that way. It just kind of…happens.

“Just because,” the favorite explanation of everyone between the ages of 5 and 10–and seemingly the majority of adults–simply doesn’t work for me. “Because [authority figure] said so” is scarcely any more satisfying. “It shouldn’t have to be that way,” a favorite justification of the left (and you thought I couldn’t bring politics into this), is similarly without value unless it’s explained why.

I’m often half-jokingly asked if I was a philosophy major. Which is flattering because believe me this ego loves to be stroked. But it’s also disheartening. I’m saddened that in the circles I run in, people find the depth to which I take politics, science, even hobbies to be something unique. I don’t want it to be unique. I don’t want to be singled out for it. I’d much rather it be the initiation or the continuation of an ongoing friendly debate. Something that’s as much take as give.

For me, I’m nothing without philosophy. It’s what helps me stand alone. It’s how I know I’m my own man, not beholden to the indoctrination of culture, peers, ancestors, or society. Because under the layers, under everything those outside see, is a core I know to be my own. Take away the clothing, the degrees, the resume. Forget about the way people describe you, from those who’ve just met you to those who’ve known you for years. Take away the words of others who taught you what to do and how to do it. What’s left?

Sadly, it would seem that the answer is at best that most people simply don’t care what makes them tick.

Perhaps it’s because I romanticize, well, the romantic period, the enlightenment, and the renaissance. Perhaps it’s because for all my cynicism and anger, I’m really an optimist when it comes to the capabilities of humanity. Couldn’t say. I just think that people are capable of understanding themselves and the world to a much greater degree than they ever try to. And when they do put in that effort, not only do they grow larger in the making, but so does the world.

A coherent personal philosophy doesn’t just help you stand alone but also together. Spider Robinson’s Callahan series more or less revolves around this idea. Through the course of that marvelous series, the denizens of Callahan’s Bar learned who they really were, and were able to form a friendship so deep and so strong that though few in number, they were able to save the world. But here in the world much of the time I feel like part of a circuit that’s been cut, a charged battery whose frayed wires are uselessly flapping in the wind.

You may take this all for granted
Take the mortar, block and glass
And you forget the speech
That moved the stone
Its really not the you cant see
The forest for the trees
Youve never been out
In the woods before

Go ahead you can laugh
All you want
But I got my philosophy
Keeps my feet on the ground
And I love you
Youre my friend
But you got no philosophy
Now its time for this song to end

There are a few people I’m able to really connect with. And I treasure those friendships, because it’s the only time Nick ever has a chance to be seen. Everyone else simply sees one layer or another.

You know what pisses me off?

Being called conservative.

You know what pisses me off even more?

When pseudosocialists call themselves ‘liberal’.

Do you know what pisses me off more than either of those?

Being told to vote for Democrats since I’m fed up with Republicans.

That one exposes just how statist and juvenile the modern so-called liberal is.

Everywhere around me I see discontent with the political leadership of both parties. The only ones who fully support the Democratic Leadership’s 12 step plan to emulate Europe’s slow decay are the ivory tower academics, their spoonfed and sheltered students, and a bunch of rich white people who feel guilty about their economic success.

And I don’t think I’ve actually met anyone who fully supports the Republican leadership. And I live in the reddest state in the union. Then again, maybe that’s why…

Yet this November, people are going to get into the booths and vote for people who don’t necessarily represent their interests or their positions, and in some cases are directly antagonistic to them. They’ll do so because “it’s as close as they can get.”

Unfortunately, when you vote you can’t put down “only because you’re the lesser of two evils,” or “I’m not voting for Republicans but against Democrats (which I may do, we’ll see),” or “I’m only voting for points 1, 3, 4, and 8 of the party platform.” A vote is all or nothing.

If we persist in the mindset that there are only two options, what will happen is we’ll enable these people to continue drifting away from what we really support. This is what the Bush administration has skillfully done for the past 6 years. I would sooner have shot myself than vote for Al Gore. I was 16 at the time, so it was irrelevent. But my position wasn’t so different from the people who were of voting age. And the Bush administration pushed their retarded agenda, the only unifying theme of which seems to be the desire to increase Executive Powers as much as possible while helping business out (which isn’t the same as advocating a free market).

Bush’s approval rating amongst conservatives has been relatively low for most of his presidency and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Yet he was voted in again in 2004. Not because people liked him but because he was better than Horseface.

And the same goes for Democrats. A lot of my left-leaning friends say they don’t support things like fully open borders, expanding social welfare, or enabling violent criminals by reducing our ability to defend ourselves, or a nanny state, but then they turn around vote for the people who do. Why? Because it’s ‘better than the alternative’.

So what do we have here? We have two political parties, neither of which represent their base all that well. And we have people that will continue to vote for one or the other knowing this. We are enabling the theocrats and the neosocialists by our unwillingness to tell them to go to hell.

A reformer, a new party, we need something. If Zell Miller and Ross Perot were to do their respective things right here, right now that’d be just about perfect. And we’re only get that if we encourage it. I don’t see any good options for 2006 but 2008 could be a very good time for an up-and-comer if we’re brave enough to break the hold the decayed and corrupt parties have on us. Don’t think of it as a vote thrown away, but as an investment on what could be something great.

At the moment we’re well within that 60 day period during which our First Amendment rights cease to exist courtesy of Sen. McCain’s insane publicity-driven political posturing. Which makes me angry. But I saw an ad air on TV that cleverly sidesteps that bit of legislative retardation. Which makes me smile.

Imagine an advertisement that starts out with a silhouette of what is clearly a female with a butch haircut (women should have long hair dammit). Imagine the advertisement explaining exactly why they can’t tell you what her name is or show you her picture. Imagine they tell you that this state insurance commissioner took tens of thousands of dollars from the very out of state insurance companies she was supposed to observe and regulate.

Now, imagine they give you a web address where you can learn more. This one right here:

www.oklahomasecrets.com

I don’t necessarily have an opinion on her. I already don’t like her. I don’t like her haircut. I don’t like her husband. As a former state employee I don’t like her abuse of expense accounts. And I don’t think the people who are supposed to be a check against something should be able to have their elections funded by that very thing. Could you imagine if Logan County (one of the nation’s largest meth hotspots) had a guy running for Sherrif who took campaign contributions from known drug dealers? Doesn’t make sense.

The advertisement could’ve been against Tom Coburn, who I would’ve voted for in 2004 if I’d been in the country at the time. I’d still have been posting about this slick little 30 second TV spot.

They found a way to bypass McCain-Feingold. And for that reason alone, I approve of their message.

Guy on a Focaljet asked this question and posted his top ten. Mine were slightly different. The one commonality, healthcare reform, showed just how different our ideologies and thought processes were. I wanted to reform it into a true market system with posted prices and employer-insurance decoupling. He of course wanted to go socialist. Which I found amusing since he supposedly likes math. And you have to be pretty bad with math to think socialist anything will work. Anyway, my Top Ten. There’s a fair amount of things you’ve seen before and these don’t necessarily go in order of importance.

1. Lock down the border
–simple logic says you cannot increase the size of your lower classes under a progressive income tax system
–furthermore, we are importing (and thus creating) an underclass, not good for them not good for us
–make English the official language. It’s the only way to be fair to all immigrant groups.

2. Tax Reform
2a. Eliminate Concealed Taxation
–the 7.5% ‘employer contribution’ to social security is a perfect example. It isn’t an employer contribution at all, but part of your paycheck deducted before you even see the stub. If you can’t see what taxes you’re paying you can’t know how badly the government is soaking you.
2b. Reduce corporate income taxes from sales
–this is effectively a concealed consumption tax, as their ‘profits’ are actually the money you spent on sales
2c. Initiate movement toward the FairTax plan
–income tax is both unconstitutional and unfair
–prebate plan ensures no one is taxed on necessities
–plus a lot more I’m not willing to get into. More here
2d. Decrease capital gains taxes
–possibly just for individuals below a certain income threshold to encourage saving and investing, reducing the need/desire for SS and government subsidized education loans

3. Healthcare reform (not what Hillary means when she says it)
3a. Decouple employers from managed care plans
–this is a form of concealed income. The employer doesn’t pay for health insurance, rather it subtracts the cost from your paycheck before you see the stub. The accountants consider health insurance just another part of payroll.
–this would increase competition as rather than having to sell to a single company, insurance companies now have to court thousands of individuals
*instead of pleasing the employer (by looking effective while being cheap), they’d have to please the person who wants to be insured.
–this would allow consumer choice as to whether full insurance is necessary or not. In many cases (especially single young people) it is simply too much coverage
3b. Push alternative coverage plans
–traditional health insurance is too inclusive, it’s like being forced to take no deductible comprehensive car insurance and a prepaid maintenance plan when all you need is high deductible liability
3c. Increase utilization of non-MD practitioners
–I’ve got a lot of respect for nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants. They could largely replace a lot of general practitioners
3d. Restrict medicaid and medicare programs significantly
–I’m very anti social welfare. It is not a good thing.
–Medicaid destroys market efficiency in healthcare. It gives too much coverage for some things and too little for others. And as eligibility grows, they become a larger and larger part chunk of the medical market. They can strongarm healthcare delivery systems in much the same way WalMart does with their suppliers.
–Medicaid and medicare encourage overuse of medical resources. You’re not paying, so why not go in for every little unnecessary thing.
3e. Allow emergency rooms to turn away non-urgent cases
–Right now ERs have to see and treat anyone who walks in the door, even someone with a simple cold
*seeing a kid with a runny nose in an ER is much more costly than in an urgent care or outpatient setting
–This is bankrupting them and increasing costs astronomically because many don’t pay, using it for ersatz primary care. This drives up your and my bill as these hospitals try to recover costs from us.
3f. Use tax incentives to encourage hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to provide indigent care
3g. Upfront pricing for medical care
–Allow patients to shop around
3h. In general encourage competition
–the current medical system is anything but a free market

4. Welfare reform
–major penalties for having children while on welfare
*not being able to take care of yourself is one thing, being derelict in your duty to raise your child is another
–couple welfare to working on government projects
*government can recoup cost of welfare by essentially ‘hiring’ these people, reducing the size of the civil service corps
–ensure that welfare is a transient safety net and not a lifestyle
–I toy with the idea of suspending their voting rights. If you’re not even taking care of yourself, what right do you have to tell other people how to live? But more importantly, if you’re living off of other peoples’ money, should you be able to vote yourself more of their money?

5. Move away from Social Security
–we will have to be weaned off of it as a 64 year old can hardly be expected to save enough money by next year to retire. Say anyone under 30 or so will not receive benefits and each year reduce the SS tax.
–private investment is a better alternative. Not government privatization of social security, but complete dissolution and moving to IRAs, 401ks and the like.

6. School reform
–competition is good
–vouchers ensure that parents are forced to spend money on their children (through taxation), yet allows choice.
–competition and government standards will ensure that even if parents do not choose school, school will still be decent
6a. Incentives to put elite schools in bad neighborhoods
–this worked well where I grew up. Kids who have little parental support nevertheless find themselves at schools with great opportunities.
6b. Accelerate the curriculum and provide public trade schools
–the answer is not dumbing down the curriculum but to smarten up the students. You won’t know what they’re capable of until you push them.
–some people can’t hack it. This is ok. There are plenty of well paying jobs for skilled labor, many of which can’t be replaced by machines.
–accelerated curricula might decrease the ‘college degree. any college degree’ requirement of many jobs.
*many jobs simply do not need a ba or a bs, they require these because the school system has gotten so crappy that they figure if you have an undergrad degree you’re up to high school standard.

7. Encourage research into viable alternative fuels–biofuels show great promise yet are underfunded compared to pie-in-the-sky tech that is often theoretically flawed, let alone impractical.

8. Remove ‘under god’ from the pledge of allegiance
–it just pisses me off and i’m running out of points to make. A 1950’s addition that undermines our founders’ commitment to a separation of religion and state.

9. Destroy the two party system
–there are more than two viewpoints out there yet sadly that is the choice we are forced to make
–The country would be better served by several parties who overlapped in ideologies. Voting blocs would disappear and there would be far less of this party line voting nonsense.

10. Shore up the constitution and its commitment to limited government–no more intellectual dishonesty about certain amendments (*cough* 2nd)
–return the Senate to state appointments rather than popular elections
*this would make senators part of state governments, and so reduce their urge to grow federal power.
–eliminate the executive powers first expanded by FDR and later by every president since
*reduce the size and power of the executive branch’s ’shadow wing’ (including FBI, CIA, ATF, etc). They don’t answer to the people and in many cases only nominally to the President. They have too much autonomy and not enough accountability.
–restrict federal powers to those areas envisioned by the founders as being necessary
–reform the judicial branch by increasing accountability and decreasing bench legislation
*there are activist judges on both the right and the left. With all too little justification they can drastically change interpretation of law even when original and/or commonsense interpretation is well established.
*term limits or at least periodic performance review periods

Thoughts
Schools and biofuels are probably the two things that pop out at you as not very minarchist. You’re right on the latter. And the former was cause for debate even in the formative years of our guiding philosophy.

I consider the environment a commons situation. And like all commons situations, self-interested individuals acting self-interestedly will result in destruction. I think that market solutions can work, but not without a regulatory framework. I see hunters, outdoorsmen, and the like as vital to preserving the natural world. I also know that we need to reduce our continued population growth and environmental impact. Not necessarily down from current levels, but control the growth from this point on.

On education, I think it was John Stuart Mill who said something along the lines of education being necessary for the maintenance of freedom. I happen to agree with him. Minarchists of all stripes tend to be very self-sufficient people and capable of taking care of themselves. These aren’t skills we’re born with, but things we learn. And it would be nice to say ‘It’s the parent’s responsibility.’ Which it is. But the truth is far too many people have children and whether through malice, indifference, or simple incompetence do not know how to turn those children into self-actualized adults. With a government education system (including a somewhat subsidized state university/college system), we can ensure that the opportunity to learn is there for all children and that they are exposed to it.

There’ll be disagreements of course. That’s kinda the point of political discourse. Anyway, that’s what I would do if I were eligible in 2008. Instead of 2020.

If you’re a firearms enthusiast you’ve probably heard of Norinco.

They’re a chinese manufacturer of a lot of weapon-related tech. What makes buying Norinco different from buying other Chinese stuff is that they are a profit center for the People’s Liberation Army. Who they’re liberating and who they’ve kept liberated I don’t know. But there you have it.

Buying exports sucks, but we all do it. But when you buy Norinco, you are directly increasing the coffers of the army of the world’s next big–probably inimical–threat. What makes it so tempting is that in several cases, Norinco offers clones of some interesting and highly sought after weapons.

They make the only forged M14/M1A receivers, Springfield et al. use cast receivers. And while they need a heat treat and some hand finishing, they are far and away the best new receivers available.

They also make a clone of John Browning’s Winchester 1887 lever action shotgun. Which is just plane cool. Also, Cowboy Action Shooting is fueling a resurgence of interest in clones of period longarms like the Taurus Thunderbolts. An 1887 would be a pretty cool piece to show up with at one of these matches.

They also do a clone of a Winchester 1897 ‘trench gun’, used in WW1 during the desperate and dirty fighting across the atlantic.

The M14 is the quintessential battle rifle and probably will always be regarded as such. The 1887 and 1897, while not exactly an improvement upon modern choices, remain interesting and fun (especially the lever-action) historical pieces and offer plenty in the way of desirability themselves.

Tempting, but worth it? To my mind no.

Most of us are well aware of all that. But a question I’ve seen come up time and again is “If it’s already in the store, then the PLA already has the money, why shouldn’t I buy it?”

Simple economics. It’s true that the chinese government has already benefited from this transaction. But importers and retailers typically decide what, how much, and how often to order based on prior sales. The faster those Norinco guns get bought off the shelves, the more of them importers and retailers will buy, and thus the more the PLA benefits.

There is one way to keep your conscience somewhat clear when it comes to these firearms, and that is to buy them used off of a site like gunbroker. The money changed hands long ago, and the person selling the firearm likely has no interest in selling more of them for a profit.

Still, this too can lead to increased sales of new weapons should these firearms become popular enough. Indeed domestic firearms manufacturers keep their eyes on sales of discontinued models, calibers, and options. When these used firearms become popular enough to start engendering a premium, manufacturers look into reintroducing these models.

You’re free to make your own choices when it comes to buying these products. After all, buying anything Chinese has a similar, but more mitigated, effect. I’m certainly not going to judge you for buying Norinco, just as I don’t judge my friends for getting drunk when I don’t. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

This is my personal take on buddhism, a combination of a strong spiritual upbringing and some scholarly dabbling in college. The Dalai Lama almost certainly has a different interpretation. I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions about Buddhism, and explains somethign of the differences between the Buddhist sect of Hinduism and other religions. It isn’t that this way is the only way, just that, so long as you remember the above lessons, it is incorruptible. If you live as a Christian, a Jew, whatever, so long as you, yourself are uncorrupted, the Hindu Gods really won’t give a damn which path you took to get there.

To understand the nature of Buddhism, and the purpose of Buddha’s life itself, one has to understand why God himself would come to Earth in mortal form, for the express purpose of telling people NOT to pray to Him.

Buddhism is a much misunderstood religion, often the biggest perpetrators of it of misinformation are Buddhists themselves.

The New Testament is like a ship floating aimlessly in the sea without the anchor of the Old Testament: You can’t understand Christianity without a basic knowledge of Judaism.

The same is true, even moreso, for Buddhism with regard to Hinduism. In fact, Buddhism is not a religion of its own so much as a sect of Hinduism. To understand this, we might as well start at Buddha’s birth.

A young queen has a dream that a six-tusked white elephant pierces her womb, an omen that the child is destined for great things. Eventually a baby boy is born: Siddhartha Gautama. The crown prince lives a sheltered and indulgent life until sometime in his twenties, he realizes that he has no idea about what life really is. So he kisses his wife and son goodbye and sits underneath a tree (a bodhi tree to be specific) and doesn’t move for 8 years.

He comes back from his trance enlightened. Now it is revealed that he is Vishnu incarnate. Other vishnu incarnations you might be familiar with include Rama and Krishna (as in Hare Krishna cultists…who I’ll save a tirade against for later). Buddha didn’t actually say anything new. But then again, neither did Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. Buddha’s contribution was to remind us what the soul of Hinduism really is.

Hinduism had become (and is becoming again today) an empty religion of prayer for things– rather than guidance–and ceremonies whose symbolism was lost. To rectify this, Vishnu came down as Buddha, and preached the same central message that had been present in Hinduism since before the Vedas had been cobbled together.

Vishnu (as Buddha) reminded us of the central fact that you do not reach salvation through devotion to God. You reach it by living according to your dharma, your duty. Which isn’t given to you by god, but through obeisance to the Vedas. The Vedas were not God’s (or God’s earthly incarnation’s) words to us; they were an explanation of the world around us (epistemology), and an elucidation of man’s place in it (ethics). Hinduism, at its core, is about man living as a part of nature, respecting nature, and interacting with others and the environment according to the precepts of natural law.

Buddha reminded us of this through the simple expedient of declaring that the question of God’s existence is irrelevant. It isn’t that you don’t believe in god, or believe wholeheartedly in Him, it’s that said belief doesn’t change how you should live: agnosticism. It is a godless, but far from soul-less sect. Buddhism wasn’t the first agnostic Hindu sect, but it was originally the most widely practiced…until ideas of God, prayer, and ceremony invaded Buddha’s central tenets some years after his death.

Buddha once again espoused the ideas of karma (what goes around comes around), ahimsa (not harming other living creatures more than necessary), dharma (duty), reincarnation, and release from the endless cycle of birth death and rebirth through the attainment of perfect harmony with the natural order (nirvana). But he did so in simpler terms, leaving God out of the picture, and thus making sure the meaning of God was not perverted by the selfish actions of what we in Hinduism have termed Rajasics (or those who pray in order to achieve their desires).
————–
To be a Buddhist then, one is faced with the paradoxical belief structure of admitting the existence of God, yet having a religion in which God plays the most minimal role possible. Brahma still created the universe, and Vishnu, in his incarnation Kalki, will still destroy it at the conclusion of the Kala Yuga (the current age). Buddha himself was an incarnation of Vishnu. In adhering to Buddhist tenets you are obeying the word of God. But Buddha is to be thought of as a messenger, enlightening us on natural law, rather than dictating it. One of his many titles was The Teacher. And it is in this capacity we must accept him.

When a Buddhist meditates, seeking enlightenment, he is not asking for the answer of an omnipotent God, but asking for the counsel of his sagacious Guru, his all-knowing Teacher. His Mr. Feeney

When I attempt to meditate, it is not to ask Buddha for the answer, but for guidance in how to solve the problem.

Myself.

70 years ago, the Indian symbol for good fortune was appropriated by an ambitious German politician to denote his Third Reich. The symbol that had graced everything from doorways to jewelry for thousands of years was in a moment’s space twisted into a representation of one of the most evil regimes in history. Today, for me to display an important part of my heritage would send quite a different signal from that intended.

Also around 70 years ago, the transformation of the word liberalim from a doctrine of minimal interference and autonomy to direct interventionism and state-mediated privileges neared completion under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his four freedoms.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened.”–Norman Thomas, founder of the American Socialist Party

I got in trouble back in middle school for drawing a Swastika on a notebook. The teacher demanded I throw the notebook out. I did. And then drew an even bigger one, in marker, on a new notebook. She tooke the hint. Hitler perpetrated so many evils against the Jews and other undesirables, as well as Europe as a whole. To allow him to further rob Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains of an essential part of our heritage is unconscionable.

It is for the same reason that we must not yield the name ‘liberal’ to our ideological enemies. To do so is to grant them a victory and a legitimacy they do not deserve. When I started this blog, almost a year ago now, I said that the war against the left wasn’t merely about issues, but about definitions. I still believe that if we are to win, we must show the world how hollow the word ‘liberal’ rings when it comes from their mouths.

Liberal–from liber, meaning free. Freedom. Autonomy. Non-interference. As 311 says:

do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
until you violate the rights of another
respect the space of your sister and your brother

This is the sum total of what it means to be liberal, freedom to choose both good and bad, yourself.

To take the hard-earned fruits of labor from some to give to others. Not liberal, but statist.

To criminalize the possession of objects, rather than their criminal use. Not liberal, but statist.

To ban unhealthy foods, because people ‘don’t know what’s best for them’. Not liberal, but statist.

To seek comfort through government. Not liberal, but statist.

To view government as the creator, rather than a defender of liberty. Not liberal, but statist

Every time Boortz denigrates the deranged thought patterns of ‘liberals’, every time Michael Savage descends into yet another overly egotistical yet erudite tirade against the ‘liberals’, it rankles. Every time a leftist declares that he is a liberal, every time someone who supports social welfare insists he’s more ‘liberal’ than me, my anger grows.

And the converse is also true. I am not a conservative. I cannot be lumped in with the conservatives. Because although I and many of my ilk are more sympathetic to conservatism, we understand that ultimately that road leads to the same tyrannical and oppressive government as leftism does.

I am a liberal. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of Jefferson, of Paine, and of Locke. I revel in the words of Godwin and Voltaire. I nod in understanding as I read Hayek, Freidman, and Smith. I am but an insignificant part of a strong, proud, and long philosophical heritage. And I will not have my name taken from me without a fight.

…maybe we’d finally get included in these massive diversity initiatives all over the place.

Thanks to the apologists at CAIR who’d much rather guilt trip Americans than actually reform their own religion, the bleeding hearts who think that if we all just hold hands and sing Kumbaiah around a campfire world peace will appear out of thin air, and the appeasers who are so scared of Islam the word ‘Allah’ causes them to lose control of their bladder and their dignity, middle and high schoolers around the country are now being taught units on Islam.

I’ve got no objection to being educated about world religions and cultures. What I’ve got an objection to is the motivation behind this. It is a tried and true axiom that ‘diversity’ only becomes important when the group we’re focusing on becomes politically important. First in the civil rights era, blacks became an important political node. Black history month, Kwanzaa, and Levar Burton in a loincloth ensued. Hispanic immigrants become the fastest growing segment of the population through means illegal (mostly) and legal. All of a sudden these new immigrants, with no history of institutional racism, become a part of the Affirmative Action eligible population, which is bizarre since other recent immigrant groups (less numerous of course) are left out. National Hispanic Month, bilingual civil servants, and illegal immigrant havens that defy US law and principles rise to the fore. Terrorists become more than just a nuisance, killing in the name of Allah, and all of a sudden Muslim Americans are in the spotlight. And, inevitably, it is followed by obsequious whoring and the judicious application of lips to buttocks.

Looking at the data from the American Religious Identification Survey from 2001, the zeal with which schools across the country are rushing to teach children about Islam seems somewhat misplaced. Especially given that one of the oldest and largest religious traditions continues to be overlooked.

As one might gather, I’m talking of course about Hinduism and Buddhism. Which really can’t be taught separately; Buddhism lacks context without a discussion of Hindu philosophy and history, and leaving out the latest reincarnation of the Hindu conception of God (Buddha) is similarly awkward. Together they represent roughly 2.5 million people as compared to the 1.5 million of Islam. Buddhism alone is just about even with Islam at about 1.5 million, while Hinduism is just behind them with 1 million.

More importantly, whereas between 1990 and 2000 the Muslim population doubled, the other two saw substantially higher growth rates. Buddhist residents nearly tripled in number, while the number of Hindus grew by an even greater 237%. But of course, no rush to add us in.

We continue to be left out of diversity initiatives across the country, and while we’re included in some, all too often we’re simply left out of the picture or given merely lip service. Far more important is it to focus on the Abrahamic religions (of which Islam is one). As an outsider, I’ve found far more similarities in those three religions than I have differences (indeed, Mohammed saw his gospel as rather similar to that of the monophysite Christians and initially approached them in a spirit of brotherhood). All three religions trace their roots to Abraham. All three place man against nature. All three count their members among ‘the chosen’. And in all three, submission to God is one of the most important themes. The eastern religions differ from them in every one of these aspects. But apparently the largest and oldest Eastern religious and cultural tradition would add little to our appreciation of the richness and variation of human cultures.

Maybe if we rioted over the Simpsons episode where Homer dressed up as Ganesh and demanded Matt Groening’s head on a platter. Maybe if we killed Texans, citing their steak addiction as an abomination unto Vishnu. Or maybe if Buddhist monks and Hindu priests demanded that we be allowed to live under our religious law despite living on American soil, or face the terrible wrath of a holy war against the American devils. Maybe then we’d be worth learning about?

If I sound angry, I am. If I sound jealous, I’m not. Disgusted would be a better word. Disgusted that people don’t see ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’ for what it is: political posturing. Muslims might be fewer in number than other groups, but they’re a very visible one given the trouble intolerant Islamofascists are creating on every continent except South America (and I might be wrong there). And at the end of the day I’m simply not a fan of enforced cultural education. It becomes just another chore when you do that. I’d much rather people come to me and ask if we really do worship cows. It sucks that that’s the public perception, but their curiosity means that when I explain the true nature of Hinduism to them, they want to hear it.

For people who are more nuanced and intellectual than men like me, with our benighted concepts of individual liberty, leftists sure seem unable to understand that a weapon is never solely an instrument of offense. In fact, many of the most popular martial art forms began as a form of defense. Kung Fu, brought to China by the Indian buddhist monk Bodhidharma, was intended as a defensive art which would confer upon them some immunity from the predations of Taoist militants then in power. And martial artists are generally known for their reserve and unwillingness to escalate the situation, this despite the fact that their bodies themselves are weapons. Just this past weekend I found myself in a situation involving a guy who pretty much needed an ass kicking–mistreating and harassing females always warrants it. And the only reason I didn’t hit him was because I’d trained–briefly and poorly–in a couple martial arts.

Lets for a moment consider the leftist proposition that the world would be better off without guns. Suspend your disbelief of the impracticality and impossibility of such conditions ever coming to fruition. And stifle the desire to remind them that firearms are more than just weapons; they are tools, they are hobbies, and they are objects around which strong communities have developed. There was violence before firearms. There was violence before the first terrestrial vertebrates crawled onto land. And there would be violence after firearms were gone.

How would you protect yourself from violent criminals? Most of them never having had to fend off an attack, leftists confidently assert that mace and a ’self defence’ class are enough. Having dropped paint stripper in my eye, rubbed habanero-soaked hands on tired eyes, etc, not to mention knowing several people who’ve been maced as part of demonstrations (or by their girlfriends by accident…long story), I can confidently say those sprays will not stop a determined attacker.

And what of self defense? Pressure points are easy to miss. I’ve missed in fights, and had people miss them on me. And many throws, blocks, and holds rely on the principle of leverage and mechanical advantage. Actual force developed is limited by the person themself. Back in college we used to wrestle around every once in a while. Couple guys in my house were ex-wrestlers. Pretty talented, both at right around 145. I was exactly 50lbs heavier, mostly muscle, but one of the most untalented wrestlers you’ve ever seen in your life. These guys were both state level competitors, both unable to pin me. Funniest moment of a fight was when one had me in a “hold” which I proceeded to turn into a throw that landed him several feet away from me. Not through any complicated and skillful reversal, but simply by overpowering him despite his leverage advantage.

And that’s the reason the handgun is called the equalizer. Short of severe nerve, muscle, or joint damage, just about anyone can wield a firearm with more than enough skill to get the job done. Size, martial art training, and speed are all neutralized.

Although feminists would die rather than admit it, the truth is that women are weaker than men at a population level. And any female as strong or stronger than a 200lb attacker is on steroids or some other anabolics. That’s just the way biology makes us (you’d think the self-proclaimed defenders of evolutionary theory would understand the evolution of sex differences). I used to let my female friends try their little throws and holds on me after they took the ‘womens’ self defense’ PE class. Less than 1 in 10 even shifted my balance, let alone stopped or slowed me. In a world without proper defensive tools which prevent attackers from closing with them, smaller people are at a disadvantage. They will be more preyed upon, they will be hurt more often, they will be the victims.

Leftists base their entire philosophy around the idea of the ‘level playing field’, whether it’s bonus points for certain brown people (but not others) in college admissions or redistributive tax and budget policies. They also insist that they are the party of womens’ rights. Why then do they deny the rights of equality and personal safety to the very people they claim to represent?

I guess you could call it a benefit of living with your parents. Mom knocked on the hovel’s door where I was busy avoiding studying and told me to come watch a 60 minutes segment on the treatment of depression through deep brain stimulation.

I think she does this just because it’s funny to see me in a rage. Cursing, throwing things (like my 8lb miniature pinscher), and semi-coherent rants equally populated by erudition and epithets characterize these award-winning performances. I’ve been told that at the climax of one of these fits, no one’s sure if I’m going to stab whoever I’m screaming at or bludgeon them to a more symbolic death with logical debate.

I get annoyed with the perception of mental healthcare (both laymen and many practitioners), not the least because like leftists they seem unable to think of long-term effects. In the case of laypeople, it’s because they haven’t been educated enough. Not exactly their fault. When it comes to practitioners, they simply have no excuse.

Now, I am not criticizing these particular clinical investigators. I have only this news report to go off of. And if they were up front with their patients on how brains work and the potential side effects related to this particular procedure (not just surgery in general), I have NO beef with them as far as ethics goes. Theory on the other hand, I do.

These doctors are using a technique called Deep Brain Stimulation of a certain area of the brain that has been found to be overactive in people with intractable depression: Area 25 (part of the Anterior Cingulate Cortex which is itself part of the Limbic System).

The fact that they’re stimulating an already pathologically overactive part of the brain should be a huge red flag that dealing with the brain is not quite as simple as action–>reaction. By stimulating it, they actually tone it down through an induced negative feedback process. Which I’m not going to explain in full because I’m lazy.

What they’re doing is theoretically sound–in the short term. The question in my mind is the longterm stability, efficacy, and safety of such a procedure.

Virtually everything in physiology revolves around the concept of homeostasis, or maintenance of a constant environment. There are several great examples of this. One being the baroreceptor reflex which attempts to keep blood pressure fairly constant. If the blood pressure stays abnormally high long enough, eventually the receptors stop reacting to it. The reflex is reset at a higher blood pressure because the neural receptors have filtered it out as noise. And now you’ve got a chronic hypertension problem.

A slightly different thing happens with the hunger-controlling protein leptin and its positive correlation with body fat percentage. Eventually, body fat percentage can get so high that leptin release can no longer increase. In these individuals not only is there a mental disconnect between eating and satiety, but a physiological one as well.

The patient who they interviewed in this segment talked about how everytime they increased the frequency and strength of stimulation, she was better for a while, and then fell right back into the pit of depression. She was considerably better off than before, but was still significantly depressed. Is it possible that her Area 25 simply adapted to the stimulation after a while and went back almost to the way it was, just as in the barorceptor reflex?

But they also showed a patient they consider their greatest success story. She had the same overactive Area 25, but has been nearly symptom free for months now. The difference in her face before and after is just amazing (as it is in the other lady for that matter). Could it be that her problem was like the leptin-body fat disjunction? With her Area 25 simply becoming too overactive to be compensated for? It would explain why she reacted more permanently than did the other patient: the stimulation returned her Area 25 to a level where her brain could compensate.

The fact that neither patient is adequately described by the same physiological model is our first clue that we still dont’ know exactly what’s going on and that depression may be considerably more complex than just an ‘overactive brain area’ or ‘chemical imbalances’.

But what scares me more is that neural tissue is some of the most sensitive stuff in the body. It pretty much dies if you look at it funny. Which kind of sucks because nerve cells, like muscles can’t regenerate; you’re born with the neurons you will die with. And one of the well-known factors in this is excessive and/or unnatural stimulation. This is the etiology of meth psychosis, the ‘holes in the brain’ in chronic ecstasy use, and drug-related Parkinson’s. Many of these substances work by stimulating neurons to release more of certain neurotransmitters (norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine). Chronic use causes these sensitive cells to die. Just as higher baseline production of insulin in those genetically predisposed to Type II diabetes eventually results in the pancreas burning out and an inability to produce full amounts of insulin later in life.

The brain represents one of the most complicated feedback and control systems many will ever study. Fewer still will take the time to think about all the different ways the brain reacts to external and internal changes before they make the simple declaration that something ’causes’ something or something ‘cures’ something. Short term and long term effects are often completely opposite. What looks like one thing in two patients could easily be two different things presenting the same way. And changing mood through SSRI’s doesn’t result in a normal looking brain on PET but an even more abnormal one.

The complexity of this system causes me to have the opinion that most of these pathologies are rooted in the persistence of certain thought patterns. If they last long enough, they can reset the brain as in the baroreceptor reflex. If they get too strong, they can escape their feedback loop, as leptin does. But what we see in our initial workup, on the MRI or the PET must be treated as a symptom. Treat it, because it needs treating, but remember that the actual cause is at least one step removed from whatever you’re looking at.