| Home | About | Contact | Books | Links | Search |
 |
|
|
ASAP
Are you drunk? The state of New York assumes you are, unless you can prove otherwise, and if you cannot, you cannot drive your car. That's the message of the pending bill "that requires the installation of ignition interlock devices, similar to breathalyzers, in all cars sold or registered in New York State."
New Mexico Almost Did This "New Mexico House passes bill requiring ignition interlock on all passenger vehicles." Fortunately, they must have read the article in the Washington Times, "New Mexico is nuts" because, "'Interlock in every car' proposal failed in the NM Legislature". But that will not stop New York. They have good reasons. To Save Lives The NY bill says, "implementation of this legislation will save lives. Alcohol effects a person's judgment, that cannot be disputed, and a person who has been drinking is in no state of mind to be judging their own sobriety, nor should other people, as many drinkers may not appear drunk to others. By installing these devices people who appear to be sober will be stopped from driving when in fact they are above the legal BAC. It is a question of lives and ignition interlock devices will save them, it is that simple." We are not making this up. The writers of this bill missed their calling. You may laugh, but this is not a Dave Barry column. One thing is certain, this new intrusion in the lives of indivduals will certainly make life more miserable, and maybe that is the real purpose of such bills. When we are made so safe that we really do not care about doing anything, our lives certainly will seem long, as well as, dull and pointless. Not a single life is going to be saved by this or any other government regulation of individual's lives and property. Not one person is going to live one minute longer because of this or any other bill. If even one of these harebrained schemes really could prolong the lives of people, people would do it themselves. They do not because they cannot possibly work. That doesn't stop the meddlers, though.
This is for those who still believe their government is protecting them from foreign invasion, or anything else, for that matter.
Henry Lamb tells us how US sovereignty is being surrendered to the United Nations by default in his article"Treaty by stealth – again!" in WorldNetDaily
Here are some of the wonderful things this treaty does for us: It "gives a U.N. agency the authority to tax by requiring a permit to engage in any activity affecting the seabed, such as oil drilling or mining ... the starting price to $250,000. The U.N. agency can also require royalty payments for any minerals extracted from the seabed. Even more important, the permit process can require detailed information about the technology to be used, which can then be shared with all member nations without regard for intellectual-property rights or security concerns.... Currently, any ship on the high seas that the U.S. suspects of carrying terrorists or supplies in support of terrorists can be boarded and detained under U.S. law. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty, the U.N.'s permission will be necessary before stopping a ship on the high seas. This treaty is very likely to become "the law of the land without ever being debated and without a recorded vote." The question is, does president Bush know about this? If he does, he evidently does not care this country's sovereignty is being sold down the river. If he does not know, he is incompetent. How could Mr. Lamb know more about what is going on in this country than the president? Still think you are free? Check out these stories on this insidious "treaty:"
The following are comments made in response to criticism from someone taking umbrage to the fact "In Praise of Mel Gibson" describes both Mel and Ayn Rand as heroes. Ayn Rand was no genious. (sic) You might not like her, which is understandable. The Autonomist says:
To deny her genius is just ignorant. I regard anyone capable of emigrating from Russia, then writing hugely successful novels in a language not her own, and developing a philosophical system that continues to grow in worldwide influence to this day a genius. "Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club." And she had a very challengable (sic) and baseless foundation upon which she built her free market beliefs. Thank God free market beliefs don't stand or fall on Ayn Rand's reasoning or the communists would rightly have us for lunch. The basis on which Ayn Rand built her concept of Capitalism was that wealth belongs to those who produced it. The basis on which the communist system is build is that wealth belongs to everyone in the community, without regard to who produced it. The first communist system every described is described in the Book of Acts, and was run by Christians. Christians invented communism. There are enough brilliant free market philosophers who have consistent reasoning, so that we don't have to rely on the fruity logical fallacies of Ayn Rand. Please name one of the these, "brilliant free market philosophers." If you mean any of those from the Austrian school of economics, they are not "philosophers," they are economists and flat-out state economics is not a moral system, but a utilitarian one. And, while you are at it, you might provide an example of even one "fruity logical fallacy," you think Ayn Rand made. It is very easy to accuse. Rand's free market philosophy seemed to be based in selfishness. First, let me make something specific. Ayn Rand's moral system on which her concepts of Capitalism are based does not "seem" to be, but is The Virtue of Selfishness. That selfishness is epitomized in this Objectivist slogan, "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957) It means, neither individuals, or the product of their labor, are the property of any others, individuals or states. Each individual must work for the sake of their own lives, and none has a claim on the lives or property of any other individual. It is a declaration of individual freedom and responsibility, one's own, and that of all other men. Now consider this slogan, "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." That is the slogan of communism. It is right out of the Bible. "Let him ... labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." (Eph 4:28) "And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:45) And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:35) Communist redistribution of wealth is based on Bible principles, which Objecivists and free market capitalists reject, because they are immoral I can gladly report that the Bible teaches free market principles for exactly the opposite reasons of Ayn Rand. Yes, they certainly are. Ayn Rand believed in freedom for everyone. The Bible never uses words like "capital," or "economics" but sure has a lot to say about how someone is to handle their slaves. There is not one word about a political system based on individual liberty in the Bible. There is not one word in opposition to slavery in the Bible. All the political systems in the Bible are Theocracies, kingdoms, empires, tribal, or socialistic. You come tell me how your religious version of "freedom" is better than Ayn Rand's when you get one that does not advocate slavery. We free market types are not (I hope) a bunch of Randian freaks who run around with a "Screw everyone else!" attitude. Real free market capitalists have no doubts about their attitudes. They are all benevolent. The following is from A Petition against Servitude Sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute, against President Bill Clinton', April 5, 1997 "Citizen's Service," program. "My life is my own. I possess the right to pursue my own happiness. I live by producing the values—material and spiritual—that fuel my life. My dealings with others are based on shared values and voluntary trade, not on sacrifice and servitude. I do not recognize any man's right to one minute of my life, nor do I assert any claim on the lives of others." [Emphasis added.] That is the principle of a free market, where every individual produces whatever they choose, offering it to any others who are free to buy or not buy, benefitting both the buyers and sellers by a mutually chosen trade. Such a market is possible only where no one is prevented by force from producing and offering whatever they choose, and no one is prevented by force from buying what they choose, or not buying what they do not choose, and no one is forced to provide anything to anyone who offers nothing of value in exchange. The other kind of market is one in which some believe they do have a claim on the life and property of others and a right to determine what people may or may not produce, and what they may or may not buy, and from whom, and when they may buy it. They believe it is right to confiscate the product of some individual's efforts to redistribute to "those in need." That is not a free market, it is a slave market, which those who get their market values from the Bible, understandably, have no problem with. Amen!
Personally, I don't care what he based it on or how many people see and love it. It's only a movie. Since I rarely watch movies and never watch TV, and consider the success of Gibson's movie nothing more than additional evidence of the descent of our culture into an irrational obsession with the visual, the sensational, and the visceral (because thinking is too hard), it is more of the same cheap and tawdry entertainment the masses always delight in, while convincing some of them, apparently, watching a movie is the equivalent of having a, "religious experience," we suppose not altogether unlike those of Anne Catherine Emmerich, herself. At least it keeps them off the street.
I said, "Everyone should relax. No doubt our government will force some "solution" down their throat, and no doubt it will be just as effective as all the other 'solutions.'"
So now, we have begun. George Bush said, "Haiti now has an interim president "... per the constitution in place," Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre. Bush said, "The United States is prepared to help."
It's a good thing the The United States did not have "friends" like these when we were about to launch our revolution. Bonne chance!
This was a surprise: "We regret to inform you that Haiti Tourisme is offline until further notice." What could have happened? Well, there goes the vacation.
It is not possible to criticize this movie without it directly or indirectly criticizing Catholic doctrine or sentiment. Therefore, according to Roman Catholics, you are not suppose to criticize this movie, because that is, ipso facto, Catholic Bashing. If you do not like the movie, have disagreements with any aspect of it, from how it was made to its intent, its content, its cinematography, or anything else, just shut-up or be known to the world as a bigoted Catholic hater.
Remember, this is the age of thin skin. No one is allowed to say anything that will offend anyone, especially if it is, "hateful." Now, if it bothers you to be called a bigot, hateful, ignorant, or any other name, the thin-skinned have won, because their tactic is to attack with the most hateful and denigrating terms possible anyone who dares to speak the truth.
Fortunately, there is rhinoceros in my family tree, and absolutely nothing penetrates my hide. I suppose some think that makes me insensitive, and I suppose it does, at least to those who think so.
So Let's Bash The Catholics
It makes no difference we have no intention of, "bashing" anyone, so we might as well call it what is going to be called anyway.
After my initial post, Passion Prattle in which I criticized the portrayal of that film as anything other than a glorification of suffering and murder and my full article, A Passion for Pain, in which I expanded on the theme of the films fascination with suffering and torment, I was asked why I thought the film had that character. "Because, it is a Roman Catholic film, and the Catholic religion is dominated by a superstitious awe of pain, suffering, and bloody rituals," I explained
I mentioned the Eucharist and the fact that Catholics believe they are literally eating flesh and drinking blood. "That would be cannibalism," I was told. "It must be only symbolic."
"Not according to Catholics," I said. My reader's can check this out for themselves, if they like, here:
Literal Human Flesh and Blood.
"Since 1713 the flesh has been preserved
in an artistic silver monstrance, of the Naples school, while the blood is kept
in an ancient, richly decorated crystal ampulla."
The Bleeding Host of Betania, provides detailed descriptions of this superstitious rite, and a very blurry picture of a "host" that "bleeds."
To Catholics, of course, all of this comes as no surprise, but to others, I suspect, this obsession with blood and the superstitious natue of these beliefs is almost unbelieveable.
The Passion of the Christ is sustained brutality and graphic, bloody, vicious, cruelty. Catholics will really enjoy it.
Oh, yes, we mustn't forget this other:
Passion of Catholics
by Charles R. Lewis, from EducationNews
Though written satirically, it is obvious the government is working very hard to make them true.
Here are a few more examples of the zero-tolerance outrages from our state day-prison/child-training camps:
"'Inch long' toy gun causes big trouble, Third-grader suspended for G.I. Joe pistol at school, " by Hannah Wofson. Just add these to the collection we have already in "We Are Not Alone, Mr. Farah, But We May Be Losing"
Martha is a big liberal, and there might be a sense of justice in the fact big government policies are now coming back to threaten her, but revenge is not my cup of tea. The threat the SEC is to all decent people and honest business men is a real threat, Martha never was.
If you want to know the real cause of all these government intrusions in business and so-called "insider trading" scandals, see Ilana Mercer's The SEC's information socialism and The SEC's Information Socialism-Part 2
Catherine makes the point the Internet has provided public school students who were formerly "stuck" under the thumbs of repressive left-wing teachers both an outlet for revealing what is going on in these classes as well as a resource for learning the truth these teachers systematically hide. We certainly hope there will be much more of this in the future.
The down-side is the possibility this Internet outlet/resource might make some people believe governmet education is now "safe." If that impression is made, it will not last long, and we can be sure "something will be done," about all this "irresponsible free speech" on the Internet.
Here is Catherine's daughter, Cecile Dubois' Blog
She supplied these links to the original post and blogs that responded to here daughter's blog, which are very interesting.
The Original Blog Entry
Original article being discussed here:
Now, for some nice "long-pig" bacon! Of course the article is about something else altogether, but the concept is not foreign to the Internet
And this from the Church of Euthanasia provides more information than anyone wants about Butchering "Long Pig" by Bob Arson. (Not for the Squeamish, or normal either.)
Here is a modern day practicioners of this ancient cultural and culinary art:
Cannibal mulling book and movie inquiries. It does not say if the book deal includes a cook book. And cannibalism must not be confused with murder, apparently: Cannibal who fried victim in garlic is cleared of murder.
If the portrayal of death and suffering are now, "an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine," Sadam Hussein and the Taliban have been greatly misjudge. They were only misunderstood artists. Instead of having our stomachs turned at the images of Taliban atrocities and Sadam's sadistic tortures we should be exulting in these images of such artistic importance.
The only real difference between glorying in the portrayal of suffering and death in Gibson's film, or the actual images of its modern day counterpart, is that Gibson's is a fake. That does not deter the superstitious masses who hold suffering, pain, and death as their highest ideals, however. It is what their God, whom they believe condemns the vast majority of mankind to eternal torment and suffering, teaches them. Of all the things one might place a value on, the thing their God values above all others is suffering and death.
Of all the things their God might have accepted as payment for man's salvation, it was not Jesus' healing the sick, or feeding the hungry, that was valued. Their God would settle for nothing less than the most excruciating pain, pointless suffering, and agonizing death possible as "payment." What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?
Rebecca describing the experience of 5000 people who watched the film, said, "We were not entertained. We did not laugh. We did not leave relaxed." In other words, they did not enjoy the film, they suffered it. Rebecca regards suffering a virtue. She said about her discomfort watching the film, "the flogging scene didn't end quickly ... so why should it end quickly for me as a mere observer?"
Because, Rebecca, suffering is evil. Pain and death are not virtues, they are the opposite of all human life is about. The purpose of life is not to pain and anguish, the purpose of life is joy and happiness.
We have no doubt, Rebecca is correct to say, "The Passion is powerful – it is reality," because the world is full of suffering and brutality, made possible by the very kind of perverted psychology that not only accepts suffering, but positively worships it.
... US officials: "We're not ready to send forces in." (That's good, if you believe it.)
"...'Our priority is a political settlement,' says Adam Ereli, deputy State Department spokesman." (That's bad, because it's none of our business.)
"...the US believes both of those problems [see article] could be addressed by a 'change of government, not a change of regime.'" (Sure!)
"A growing chorus of US voices appears to be saying a peaceful solution cannot be engineered with Aristide. That view is echoing from Republican lawmakers who never did support the Clinton administration's return of Aristide to power."
Everyone should relax. No doubt our government will force some "solution" down their throat, and no doubt it will be just as effective as all the other "solutions."
"Dr. Bruce W. Wilkin, a rural physician in Nevada, is one of thousands of physicians who are facing legal challenges for their professional treatment of patients in pain," according to this story in CPAIN (Chronic Pain Action Information Network)
Here is your "compassionate" government at work:
"Deputy Attorney General, Richard J. Legarza, legal counsel for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, has filed 19 unspecified charges of malpractice against Bruce W. Wilkin, M.D." This dangerous criminal is being prosecuted (read persecuted) for treating "patients listed in the Board’s complaint ... known and treated by Dr. Wilkin for chronic pain over the past 10 to 20 years or more."
This dedicated doctor is being threatened by government thugs who
have "refused to specify why Dr. Wilkin was charged with 'malpractice' for treating intractable pain in his chronic pain patients," which, "every physician licensed by the State Board, including Dr. Wilkin, is authorized to" do.
"With the so-called “War on Drugs” being waged in this country, the medical profession has become afraid to prescribe pain therapy out of fear of being prosecuted by State Boards or law enforcement agencies. Recent studies indicate that two-thirds of all chronic pain patients in the United States are given inadequate treatment to control their pain, and only about five percent of doctors across the country are still willing to treat severe chronic pain."
That is how our government seeks to improve our lives. This is how the government deals with those who truly improve the lives of others:
The State Board’s actions through Mr. Legarza have forced Dr. Wilkin to defend himself against unspecified charges because he refused the Board’s “settlement offer” which would:
(1) “Force him to retire and give up the practice of medicine by January 1, 2004,” or:
(2) Plead “no contest (Guilty)” to all nineteen (19) unspecified charges of malpractice, and
(3) Forfeit all of his civil and constitutional rights to ever have a full hearing before the State Board or in any Court of Law regarding this matter.
Whichever poison Dr. Wilkin chose to accept, the Board’s offer also demanded that he:
(4) Agree to pay for all Board expenses relating to past and future investigations, with the open threat that other investigations concerning him were proceeding and it was guaranteed that additional unspecified charges would be filed. (Importantly, malpractice insurance coverage does not provide for defense of disciplinary actions brought by the Board, so Dr. Wilkin is being forced to personally pay all costs for defending himself out of his own pocket),
(5) Surrender his license to prescribe any narcotic pain medications or even cough syrups, which would effectively prevent Dr. Wilkin from providing any further hospital practice, obstetrical care and deliveries or any emergency room care, and
(6) Be forbidden from discussing the history or care of any of his patients with any other doctor, effectively forcing him to abandon his patients and deprive them of all continuity of care. This alone vividly illustrates the total lack of concern by Mr. Legarza and the State Board for patient care and safety.
Still think you are free?
|
The bill "would require the installation ... in all motor vehicles manufactured for use, sold or registered in this state. Those manufactured must be fitted by December 31, 2006 while all existing cars must be fitted by December 31, 2007. Ignition interlocking devices are defined as any blood alcohol concentration equivalence measuring device which connects to a motor vehicle ignition system and prevents a motor vehicle from being started without first determining through an essential deep lung breath sample that the operator's equivalent breath alcohol level does not exceed the calibrated setting on such device."
The Law of the Seas Treaty, rejected by Ronald Reagan in 1982, was sent to senate to by ratified in 1994 by Bill Cliinton, but no action was taken. Now, Mr. Lamb reveals, "Mysteriously, the treaty appeared on the Foreign Relations Committee hearings calendar on Oct. 14 and Oct. 21, but no opposing voices were allowed to present testimony. [Emphasis added]
And we've begun that too. 
"More than twelve centuries the first, and
most important, of the miracles of the Eucharist in
the Catholic Church has been preserved in the town of Lanciano. The prodigious
event took place in the 8th century AD in the little church of San Legonziano,
because of the doubts of a Basilian monk concerning the real presence of Christ
in the Eucharist.
"During the celebration of Holy Mass,
after preservation, the host became living flesh and the wine became Living blood, clotting into five
iregualr (sic), differently sized and shaped globules.
She's not free yet, but, according to this story, 
In fact, the charges against Martha are a bit of a 
This trial is not about insider trading, "but the right to declare one's innocence, even when the government later agrees." 
Robert Louis Stevenson's In the South Seas provides some historical perspective on this delicacy in
We must not leave out good Hindu tradition. From 
Rebecca Hagelin asks, 
|
|
All trademarks are the sole property of their respective owners.
Copyright 2004 The Autonomist & HPAmericaTM All rights reserved.
|