Censored Confustion

The ACLU is confused (yes, again). Here is their intro to Banned Books Week:

What do The Grapes of Wrath, Little Red Riding Hood, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and Playboy have in common?

Every one of these works has been censored somewhere in the United States. Censorship comes in many forms. Whenever a school board librarian, newspaper editor, politician, or store owner tries to take away your right to decide what you want to see, hear or read, that is censorship.

If "censorship" is to have any meaning, it must involve someone interfering with your rights. This always entails violence or coercion at some level. Notice please, the "newspaper editor" and the (book) store owner in the quote. These people, by profession, facilitate your access to information. Suppose they wanted to retire? ... or go on vacation? Do you think you have a right to make them keep working, to keep facilitating for you? The idea is, of course, absurd; that would be slavery.

The politician in the ACLU's list is very different. Politicians in my experience rarely have an idea that does not involve coercion of someone. To mix the two, as they do, is horrid and a betrayal of the very meaning of rights. Shame on you, ACLU. No biscuit!

To The Honorable Brad Miller

Health care? I got your survey and the first thing you should know is that responsible people do not click on buttons in any e-mail, ever! (Sure, it SAYS it was from you -- and some Nigerian wants to send me millions, too!)

On to substance: there is nothing in your newsletter to indicate you gave a moment's thought to WHY health care costs are soaring. Other high tech aspects of our economy are greatly expanding capability while reducing costs -- why is health care different? The answer has many aspects, but one stands out: third party payers! This system leaves all the people directly involved (that's doctors and patients) with no incentive to hold down costs.

The problem was created by Congress -- they gave a huge discount on some methods of paying for health care and not to others. The corporations love it -- they like having employees chained to their jobs. Congress could easily fix it, just by treating all medical costs the same. It doesn't much matter whether health care is deductible or not, as long as all payment models are treated equally. But. no....

Congress, instead of fixing the problem they created, wants MORE (and more remote) third party payers! What's worse, the so-called "reform" proves that Congress knows they are making the problem worse: it includes a brand new federal agency just to deny health care when it's too expensive.

Everybody thinks they hate insurance company bureaucrats; just wait 'til they have to deal with government bureaucrats!

Back to the survey: the only proposal there that even half-way deserved a check mark was this -- "Reform medical malpractice laws to help bring down health care costs." I would ask you to "reform the entire tort system to bring down the huge costs to doing any kind of business."

Precautionary Compulsion

I would call the Graedons, Joe and Terry, native North Carolina heroes. They do a radio show on home remedies, medical practices, health and related issues. The principal effect of their efforts is to empower their listeners -- as individuals -- in the competition (as it would seem) between the medical establishment and patients.

For all that, they seem to have one blind spot, though. There is one "medical practice" that doesn't get much scrutiny for efficacy or cost and there's to be nothing like empowerment of individual related to THIS issue! This week's show (11 July '09) had a guest who vividly illustrated the problem. The guest was one Linda Birnbaum (PhD, DABT, ATS), who is Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. (Yes, all that!) Ms Birnbaum is concerned about plastic, plastic that touches your skin, plastic that touches your food, and just plastic generally. The stuff might be dangerous. It might be!

There's a principle involved here. Ms Birnbaum explained that she believed in The Precautionary Principle, which she explained meant that one did not have to have complete information or "proof" in order to take action. Well, that sounds pretty norm... wait -- don't humans always have incomplete information? Always! And what sort of "action" would Ms Director of National [Stuff] be planning to take? If you guessed she will substitute her judgment for everyone else's and (she's a bureaucrat) compel (regulation, fines, jail, violence!) obedience, then you understand the situation. This "incomplete information" gambit means she doesn't want to be bothered to justify her dictates.

If I pitched a new drug to Joe and Terry and I explained that I had "incomplete information" and I wanted -- not just to offer, but to compel people to take my new drug, they would be livid. But for regulations or for any government sponsored interference in medicine, it seems that good intentions are all that is needed. No double blind, placebo controlled study (or any study) is needed. Why Joe? Why do government edicts get by on good intentions while real medicine needs extensive (expensive, long delaying) tests?

Is there anything that more red tape won't fix?

The N&O is mournful; it's just so sad that the State has to enact a new law (S729) to prevent people from doing a "wrong thing [that] is blindingly, glaring apparent." So, after making laws for 3000 years, what wrong thing has everybody missed until now? In the words of the N&O, it's selling "a load of aluminum or copper or cast iron that obviously belongs to someone else."

Now, you probably thought that it had already long been illegal to traffic in stolen goods. And you probably also thought that "obviously" meant ... um, at least "easy to prove in court." Ah, but you'd be wrong. Senator Bob Rucho (R-Etard) and his pals believe some stolen goods are being bought and sold, but prosecutors just can't prove it. So, they have to DO something, don't they? So, they want to add extra red tape to every transaction, so they can punish people even when it cannot be proven they were knowingly buying stolen goods! And, even when they're NOT buying stolen goods, but merely failed get a permit.

Pretty soon everything you want to do will require a permit. Do you have a permit to ask for a permit?

When is a probe a Probe?

Thank goodness we have Fox 8 to keep us informed about the goings on in Iredell County, here in NC. Here's the lead: "During a traffic stop, sheriff's deputies discovered a woman who had 400 pills of ecstasy hidden inside one of her body cavities."

No, it was not her mouth.

The story is here. And the question is, of course, do they probe you at every traffic stop in Iredell or just if you're an 18 year old woman?

Coming soon to a traffic stop near you?

Want a new Garbage Disposal? TOO BAD!

No More Garbage Disposals in Raleigh

Not only does this limit your personal choice as to what you can install IN YOUR OWN HOME, more food waste in the trash and in our landfills is bad for environment.

According to the article, they are also "encouraging" citizens to disconnect the devices. I wonder how long before it's "mandated" that you disconnect your garbage disposal?

Raleigh Water Restrictions

Raleigh is now under Stage 2 Water Restrictions



I care about my community. I always do my best to help out the community by volunteering my time, cleaning up after myself (and others), helping others in need and just try to be an all-around good citizen. I do not do these things because I am bound by the law, I do them because it's what I want to do. When I was made aware of the serious water shortage in my community, I immediately made a few lifestyle changes. I did not water my plants, didn't leave my faucets running, checked for leaks, stopped washing my vehicle and I also made a conscious effort to shorten my showering time. I care about my community and f there is something I can do to help, I do it.

The most challenging was probably shortening my shower time. I have thick hair and it's hard to rinse it out in a short period of time. I managed to get it down to a science. Without washing my hair, I could be in and out of the shower in 3 minutes. Washing my hair, no more than 7. I miss my long, hot showers, but it's a small sacrifice.

I recently received a letter from my landlord informing me that the City of Raleigh had mandated him to install "low-flow" shower heads. About a week later, he installed them.

Well, no more 7-minute showers for me! I can barely rinse myself off in 7-minutes,much less rinse the shampoo out of my hair. How much do water these "low-flow" shower heads actually save? I actually feel like I'm using MORE water than I did before.

As usual, government does NOT know what is best. If they did, we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Water has been a problem in this area since I moved here 13 years ago and no one has ever done a damn thing about it.