Socialism in America
11/11/99 I didn't think I was going to be able to call people on medicare *thieves* and get away with it. I am surprised it took this long for someone to write to me about it.

    "I read your latest rant page....yes I do like debates,and I believe in the power of free speech..} But you really surprised me when you accused people of being on Medicare as thieves, isn't that a stereotypical statement. I mean Im sure there are genuine Americans that deserve to be taken care of, ie the Elderly, the Disabled, . Some of these people for Gods sake have toiled for years serving your Country, be in it War, or longtime lowpaying jobs; and so many of them are being treated as refugees coming to Canada to pay for Drugs they cannot afford to pay for in the U.S.A.
    The real question is just who are the thieves? I have no respect for the ultimate GREED of these huge drug companies, who often transcend themorality of a rapist. Unchallenged, and unrivalled, these conglomerates
gouch the most unfortunate, under the guise of research and development costs, ha they know... the United Sates Congress knows that they could slash their drug prices by 50% and still make a huge return!"

     I am opposed to welfare, medicare, social security and any other entitlement program that gives money to people for no reason. I do not care if they are old or poor or crazy or jobless. Welfare was meant to be a temporary thing during a time of horrible economic problems in this country. We no longer have these problems (especially right now!) yet people still get these *benefits*. How about getting a job? How about saving your own money for your retirement and your health care? It is widely debated about whether social security is even going to be around when people my age are *entitled* to collect it. The people who are collecting it now put in MUCH LESS than they are taking out and it is people my age who are paying for it. It is an unfair system and it is socialism.
      I am horribly offended, however, at the treatment of our veterans. They DID do a lot to serve our country (I have issues with military service that I will go into another day) and they get the worst medical care possible. That is wrong. On the one hand, joining the military SHOULD be like having a regular job and would come with the regular health benefit that would run out when you stop working there. But joining the military IS NOT like a regular job. You join and your body belongs to them. They have a responsibility to take care of it. We pay so many taxes to support the military and yet servicemen and veterans get screwed over on a daily basis. It is disgusting.
       I have no feelings of responsibility for people who "toil away in longtime low paying jobs". Their lack of motivation or skills is not my problem and I resent having to pay for it.
       You do not have to respect drug companies but that does not mean you can restrict their profits. They are businesses and are entitled to make a profit. The DO do a lot of good for people and could probably do even more if they did not have to deal with the FDA ("postal employees with smocks and microscopes") We do not allow laws to be passed here restricting profits. It is simply not the American Way (except in the case of Microsoft or large banks which I will discuss in the next section).

11/18/99 I got a response from the same person who wrote me this in the first place:

              "I enjoyed your rebuttal called Socialism in America, well not quite, I dont see it that way, when it comes to Medicare. People who are sick no matter what their colour , race , religion, or age , should have access to Medical tratment. Belive me T, I am anything but a Socialist, I just belive that Public Health is something that goes beyond HANDOUTS, I dont like paying taxes either, hence the reason I left out Income above. You just cannot decide to treat people on this basis...or you are simply putting profit ahead of human life..and to me life is more important.
              As for the Drug companies...well I wrote a paper on them 14 years ago in University, they are without a doubt an enigma..belive me, from price fixing Vitamins across the world, to triing to copyright naturally grownproducts, they make Microsoft look like Angels. My arguement wasnt to restrict their profits....no, but rather make themselves morally responsible to those who need their products the most.

       Perhaps private companies or churches or someone  should be helping these people. There are a lot of do gooders who love helping people. If YOU like it so much, why don't YOU start a clinic. Just leave me out of it. You may want to spend your hard earned money on people who cannot get their act together, but I don't.  We aren't talking about *profit* we are talking about people's money that they earn being taken away from them to help other people that they do not know or care about. Many times this money goes to help people who should have taken better care of themselves to begin with. I REALLY resent having to spend the money that I work night and day to make fixing up some idiot who smoked all his life. They can't take responsibility for their health or their income or their savings so I have to? I don't even know this person. Why do I have to be responsible for him?
                As for drug companies, they do not have to be *moral*. If they harm people they should be sued, of course. But they should not be forced to comply with some random definition of moral. What if they stopped making drugs altogether? Then were would these poor needy people be? If there is no longer any profit in it (or not enough profit in it) why should they keep doing it?

11/25/99 I got a couple things about my *coldhearted attitude*. Here's one:

              "For the most part, I agree with your views. Though, I was somewhat surprised by your attitude in the Socialism in America section.  Your attitude that you are opposed to welfare, medicare, and social security or other entitlement programs that gives money to people for no reason seems kind of cold and harsh.   You seemed to convey an attitude that these social programs should be abolished.
               I, for one, am a firm believer in self-reliance and self-determination.   I agree with you that we shouldn't have to support those individuals in our society that are too lazy to go out and get a job, who lack the vision and the self-discipline to save for their own retirement, or who make poor health related decisions.  But, I do recognize that we don't live in a world that is not always fair.   Would you deny a child food, shelter, and access to medicine simply because his or her young, unwed, low skilled, and uneducated mother made poor choices in her life?
              I personally live in Gainesville, Florida, which seems to have an abundance of homeless people.   I have made it a point to get to know one particular homeless man.  Most of the time he talks to himself and simply does not have the capacity to  hold a rational conversation with people.  I have inquired about him through some police officers that I know and found out that when he was in college, both of his parents were murdered.   He dropped out of school and basically lost it.  His condition has been degenerating ever since.  He has been rejected by society.   Do you think he should be denied  access to welfare simply because he is "crazy"?
               You simply can't turn a blind eye to these people who have been dealt a bad hand by life -- at least, not in a civilized society."

           Where do I begin.... I DO believe these programs should be abolished.  You cannot be a " firm believer in self-reliance and self-determination" and also support programs that give your heard earned money to others. That forces you (self reliant) to give the fruits of your labor to others (un self reliant). That kind of thinking is illogical and cannot be applied to some people and not others.  How do we determine who is capable of working and who is not? Who *deserves* help and who does not? We could *help* the *unfortunate* better by abolishing all these social programs. This would make room for people who want to help those who really need it. People who do not really need it would be forced to become self reliant.
           I keep hearing from all these bleeding hearts. It is fine with me if you want to help people, I don't so I shouldn't be forced to. If YOU want to, go ahead! Go and work at a soup kitchen (which are usually sponsored by private companies by the way). Go start a medical clinic for indigents. No one is stopping you. If it is so important to you that these people are helped, then go out and help them!
          As for the homeless man, perhaps you should start by helping him yourself (since you think it is so important). Let him stay at your house, buy him a few hours at a psychiatrist, help him get a job. I do not think they these people should not be *helped*, I just think that I should not be forced to help them myself (with my tax dollars). I think they should be helped by those who WANT to help them. No one should be forced to comply with someone else's morals. It would also be a lot more effective because people who REALLY enjoy what they are doing do it a lot better than some government employee could ever do it.

12/2/99 a rebuttal from the person above:

           "Thanks for responding to my e-mail on your Rants page.   I just have a few points to make.   First, perhaps I should have expanded a bit on my "I firmly believe in self-reliance and self-determination" statement.   You are right. It is illogical to say that and then to say that I support social aid.  To elaborate, I think that there are people in this world who simply lack the *capacity* to care for themselves.   Namely, children and people who are so befuddled by mental illness and disease that they are unable to care for themselves.   I think that those individuals are entitled to social aid if they need it.

I think that if you and anyone else wants to help these people, you should go ahead and do it.

              On a global scale, this is an issue of isolationism vs. interventionism, isn't it?  You probably don't think that we should give aid to foreign countries too.  Every man for himself, right?  Those Turks, for instance.  Why did we intervene and help them out?  So what if the region was devastated and that 15,000+ people lost their lives.  Right?  As long as it doesn't interfere with our secular and egocentric lifestyle, who cares?

I do not know much about this issue. I do feel that some foreign aid is pretty stupid. We helped Iraq out when were having trouble with Iran and now we are having trouble with Iraq and they are using our aid against us.

              I know that that really isn't your attitude.  The way I understand your attitude is this  -- you simply don't think that *you* should have to give aid.   If other people want to give, let them give.  Regardless, I think it would be a pretty dark and dismal world if everyone shared your attitude.

(a) what makes you think EVERYONE would think like I do? We live in a world where everyone thinks differently.
(b) IF everyone thought/thinks like I do, then we are all being oppressed by being forced to *help* others. We are ALL being forced to comply with the values of a few individuals.

2/17/00 I got another letter about my ideas of socialism:

             "I myself am a socialist and I agree with most of your comments on the subject (particularly the part on war vets) because I myself am an amature historian.  Anyway, I agree with your statement that people should save up for retirement and health care, but some people doing honest (which is almost always hard labor in my opinion)  live paycheck to paycheck, because of children, housing ect...  So I would like to know what you think about such a situation. "

           I think the government should let you keep the money you give them for social security (at the very least...I would prefer they let you keep the money you pay in income taxes as well)  and you should invest it yourself. You would need to learn a little bit about investing but if you invested wisely I promise you would make a LOT more money for your retirement than you will ever get back from social security.

           Evidently this person did not read this page fully before writing the above letter. A few minutes later I got this email:

           "I don't wish to be rude, but you seem to have the wrong idea of socialism.  Socialism in general is a form of goverment where you have spread out colonies consisting of 1000-10000 people.  In each of those colonies people do tasks depending on what they are skilled at or enjoy doing, and everyone earns approximatly the same ammount of money.  That is my view of what socialism is.  "welfare"  "medicare", those things are what I call false wanna be socialism.  So please don't get the wrong idea about what socialism is."

          That sounds like a commune to me. Maybe he should move to a commune. I am all for communes if people want to live that way! I am sure they work great if everyone in them has the same mindset and opinions and expectations. That is not how I would ever choose to live but I don't really mind if others want to live that way. A commune is like a family. You give things and money and help to other members of the family, not to perfect strangers and low life moochers the way the current American socialist government is set up.
         I am not sure this person actually has the right definition of socialism either. There appear to be many definitions of the word. He is referring to a small group of people living in a planned community and following the rules of that community.  I am NOT against that. I am against the government intervening in all aspects of people's lives and forcing people to do what the government tells them to do.
         By the way, the government is not all that tolerant of communes. Look what they did to the people in Waco.  The socialistic US government (actually in this case they were acting rather fascist instead of socialist, thats a refreshing change for them) won't even let people be socialists unless they do it the way the government says they must! This is the kind of thing I am against. Go be a socialist! Just don't involve me or force me to be one too.
 

Bank ATM Fees
11/11/99 This one cracks me up. We all hate those fees we get charged to use another bank's ATM machine. The City of Santa Monica California (or as we call it here in L.A. "The People's Republic of Santa Monica") recently tried to pass a law eliminating these fees. Now those banks, Wells Fargo (who by the way I use and actually really really hate, I am just too lazy to bother changing allll my stuff to another bank) and Bank Of America (who I used to use till they gouged the living f!@# out of me and I switched) are refusing to serve customers of other banks at their ATMs. Ha! Duh! Did they really not see THAT coming!? Of course this fee is ridiculous, it is like 10% sometimes! BUT, they are entitled to do business as they see fit. They are not required to serve people who are not their customers. It is a convenience and it is one that you should expect to pay for. It was not too long ago that there were no ATMs and banks were only open from 10 to 4 Monday thru Friday. Now people are all hysterical because they have to pay 2 bucks to have access to their money wherever and whenever they want it. Let's get some perspective. And let's not forget that you do not have to use these machines. You can be a little more organized and a little less lazy and go to your own bank's ATM for free. These big banks (no matter how reprehensible I think they are, and I do think that, mainly cuz their "customer service" is so inept and they hire people who have no desire to use their brains) should not have to pay for your inability to plan ahead.

11/18/99 I got mail on this. Here is some of it:

              "I don't have a problem with being charged for using someone else's ATM. It is the cost of convenience. But you get charged by BOTH banks now, the one who owns the ATM and your own, which you didn't used to. That's the problem.
               One thing you left out of your rant is the amount of money banks SAVE by having ATMs. They're able to cut back considerably on tellers and customer service reps.
                I'm not sure how you feel about anti-trust laws, but because all banks are now charging these fees, you could make the argument that they've used collusion to pad their profits."

            If you have a problem with your bank charging you to use another bank's ATM then you should take it up with your bank. That does seem like an unreasonable fee to me but if you do not like your bank's policy, you should discuss it with them or change banks to one that does not do that. I have checking account for my business at a small bank that does not charge me to use other ATMs. They do exist. You do not have the right to expect another bank to let you use their services for free. As for the banks saving money, good for them. The point of a business is to make a profit. If you try to do it by reducing customer service eventually you will go out of business. Customers should leave banks who charge high fees, not try to get laws passed to prevent them. I do not think there has been any collusion here. We will have to wait and see what the ruling is.

Someone else had this to say:

             "I agree that businesses should be able to do business as they see fit.  However, there are a couple of points that need to be raised.  First, since these banks are charging exorbitant ATM fees, they can close bank branches and many of their existing ATM outlets to avoid paying operating and real estate costs.  That causes a major inconvenience to the consumer to find their banks ATM machines and occasionally one has to resort to paying the fee.  Switching banks as you stated is a pain in the ass.  I don't disagree with a modest fee but $2 per transaction far exceeds the cost of operating these ATM machines.  This is mainly profit to access your own money.  Why the hell should Bank of America or Wells Fargo keep the majority of their bank branches open for business when they already have your money and know that people are going to use other bank's ATM machines to get it?  B of A has already closed 5 branches in my local area and I now have to drive miles and into heavily trafficked areas to find a machine.  Yes, I am changing banks but the point is they are gouging the consumers.
              The second and far more contentious point is the way Bank of America and Wells Fargo formed an alliance to simultaneously boycott the California law eliminating the fees.  Neither bank would dare stand alone in it's decision.  This is considered collusion and a violation of the antitrust laws designed to protect against the very thing they're trying to achieve.  Due to the collaborative nature of their decision, both banks will be ordered to comply with the law and to reverse their decision to refuse customers of other banks at their ATMs.  I support the antitrust laws that prevent corporations from joining forces to screw the consumer."

            If you are inconvenienced you should switch banks. It is a pain but it doesn't take THAT long. It is just a matter of what you are willing to put up with versus the trouble it takes to move banks. This is not a reason to try and restrict profits to a business with laws. The BEST way to get banks to stop charging these fees is for everyone to switch to a bank that does not charge fees to use other ATMs and to use only that bank's ATMs. It is a fee to access your own money but by using someone else's service. You are paying for the service, not the money. Actually the anti trust scenario you said would happen did NOT happen. The banks ARE being allowed to charge non customers in Santa Monica now. The money is going into escrow until a ruling about it comes down.

Here is the most rational email I got on the subject:

              "I enjoyed reading your rant on atm fees. I am really shaking in my boots over Bank America not letting me use their atm. ( no wells fargo in this area. ) lol  I joined a credit union a few years back to avoid extra bank fees. I get free checking , and I can get free atm use at any Cash Points atm. I admit I sometimes pay a fee for atm when I am on vacation and I am too lazy to hunt for a cash points. But with a atm on every corner it really is no great sacrifice to pass by a Bank America atm. "

This was an interesting concept, of course it would never fly here.  The government couldn't keep track of everyone's income.

           "Hi! You mentioned in your rant page that it wasn't to long ago there were no ATM's. Your absolutely one hundred and ten percent correct! But, in Australia anyway, we were paid our wages in sweet folding stuff (cash). I dunno what was happnin in the USA, but down under those were the good old days when the f#c"#n banks couldn't manipulate your every move."
 

Taxes Taxes Taxes
11/11/99 I got a little card in the mail from my long distance phone company, Sprint. I participate in their partnership with TWA airlines and earn frequent flier miles that I can redeem for a free flight on TWA. I get one mile for every dollar I spend on long distance. They were writing to inform me that I am now being taxed by the government on the frequent flier miles that I earn. The tax is one dollar for every 1000 miles I earn. What is this madness? Whose idea was this? What is the money going to be used for? When are they going to start taxing the air we breathe and the ground we walk on? Unreal!

11/25/99 Someone sent me this funny quote:

             "Finally, on your comment about taxing airmiles - Leonard Wibberley (an Irish author) wrote 30 years ago about America that "they are the most adroit nation in the world at devising taxes.  A nation that came into being in a rebellion against taxes has become the Machiavelli of the politics of taxation"!"

Those wacky Irish.

What Were They Thinking?
11/25/99 You expected a Thanksgiving rant? Sorry, I don't have one. Here is something else that was in today's newspaper tho. The City Of Los Angeles apparently passed a law that requires  businesses to contribute to an *arts fund* and/or commission works of art for their buildings. I guess the thinking was to make L.A. more beautiful by force. Of course some businesses thought this absurd and commissioned absurd artworks. And of course there are strict rules governing the artwork which stifles the artists and consequently their artwork.  Again with the forcing of one persons morals onto another. And of course it ultimately did not work. Someone thinks of a *great idea* and wants to force everyone else to think it is a great idea too and forces them to go along with it by passing a law. People (especially business people) in this situation are generally pretty smart and will find ways around things they do not want to do so natural human ingenuity prevailed and we wound up with unartistic artwork all around the city. Ha! Now THAT'S funny. If only all the laws that backfired did so in such an amusing way. I love this quote by one of the officials at the end of the story: "These things kind of evolve," he said. "They aren't perfect right at the outset."  Sounds like an idiot politician to me. Just admit it was a stupid idea and go get a real job.  Stop mooching off of the citizens who don't like you or your dumb ideas.
 

"Deep" Thoughts
12/2/99 This was forwarded to me this morning buried under about 50 other forwards from other people. Knowing the ways of email, I bet a lot of you got it too.  I read it as I read everything that comes across my email but after I read it I was disturbed. It seems as if this kind of touchy feely yet ultimately meaningless kind of chatter is becoming extremely prevalent in our cultural thinking. I think it is rather dangerous. It is the kind of danger that is not immediately apparent. It seeps into our unconscious until we lose the ability to think for ourselves. Everything we think and feel can be encapsulated into *truisms*. We are looking for easy ways to feel fulfilled. Unfortunately the reality is that there are no easy ways to really get fulfillment. I decided to *respond* to each of these little happy thoughts with my own. The original ideas are in light blue and my ideas are in white (as usual).

I'm reading more and dusting less.
That is all fine and dandy until someone comes down with the plague.

I'm sitting in the yard and admiring the view without fussing about the weeds in the garden.
Oh, so YOU are the one reducing the property values in my neighborhood.

I'm spending more time with my family and friends and less time at work.
Doing what? Shopping? Watching TV? That's worthwhile.

I'm trying to recognize these moments now and cherish them.  I'm not "saving" anything; we use our good china and crystal for every special event such as losing a pound, getting the sink unstopped, or the first Amaryllis blossom.
Tell that thing about not "saving" anything to your 15 year old daughter and her boyfriend. Use your *special* crystal everyday and it loses its *specialness*. Now what will you use on the REAL special occasions? Or don't you ever have any?

Whenever possible, life should be a pattern of experiences to savor, not to endure.
Yadda yadda yadda, quit daydreaming about idiotic things and find a decent job that you think is fun. You spend more than half your life on your work, you may as well be fulfilled by it and not search for fulfillment at the mall or in getting the sink unstopped.

I wear my good blazer to the market.  My theory is if I look prosperous, I can shell out $28.49 for one small bag of groceries.
That's logical (NOT). You might be better off taking a critical thinking class. Or getting a job that pays you enough that you don't have to even think about a measly 28 dollars.

I'm not saving my good perfume for special parties, but wearing it for clerks in the hardware store and tellers at the bank.
I am sure they appreciate it. (uhhuh ya right) Why give your special things to people who mean nothing to you instead of saving them for people who DO mean something for you? Now what will you wear for your husband or your good friends? Same perfume? Nice leveling. For what purpose? Make all things equal and nothing remains special. Eventually, nothing has any meaning.

"Someday" and "one of these days" are losing their grip on my vocabulary. If it's worth seeing or hearing or doing, I want to see and hear and do it now.
Tell that to your 15 year old daughter and her boyfriend (wow, this girl is gonna have a GOOD argument, "but mom, you said.....")

I'm not sure what my friends would've done had they known that they wouldn't be here for the tomorrow that we all take for granted.  I think they would have called family members and a few close friends.  They might have called a few former friends to apologize and mend fences for past squabbles.  I Iike to think they would have gone out for a Chinese dinner, or for whatever their favorite food was. I'm guessing; I'll never know.
They probably would not have done ANY of those things. They are DEAD. Dead people have no regrets, it is the living who put that particular neurosis onto the dead.

It's those little things left undone that would make me angry if I knew my hours were limited.  Angry because I hadn't written certain letters that I intended to write one of these days. Angry and sorry that I didn't tell my
wife/husband and parents often enough how much I truly love them.  I'm trying very hard not to put off or hold back anything that would add laughter and luster to our lives.  And every morning when I open my eyes, I tell myself that it is special. Every day, every minute, every breath truly is a gift.
Then quit wasting it thinking about this drivel and go do something with your life. You should be writing those letters and doing all that stuff NOW instead of bothering everyone with your stupid sentimental illogical thoughts if you think that is so important. You cannot accomplish these things you speak of above without having something that gives your life meaning. Something fulfilling. People are led astray by those of you who claim that
you CAN find fulfillment in the *first amaryllis blossom* or *using the good crystal*. That is not true. The only way to find fulfillment is to go out and do something that you truly enjoy as your life's work. Make your whole existence about laughter and luster. Do not go out looking for things that will add those qualities to your mundane life.

If you received this it is because someone cares for you.  If you're too busy to take the few minutes that it takes right now to forward this, would it be the first time you didn't do the little thing that would make a difference
in relationships? I can tell you it certainly won't be the last.
I think I received this because I am on someone's email CC list. The person who sent it to me is on someone else's email CClist. Let's not get carried away thinking that these people sent this *message* to us because they *care*. I also fail to see how this crap can make a difference in anyone's relationship with anyone else. It isn't even well structured and it makes very little sense.

Take a few minutes to send this to a few people you care about, just to let them know that you're thinking of them. People say true friends must always hold hands, but true friends don't need to hold hands because they know the other hand will always be there.
What the HELL does that mean? Are we supposed to say *oooohhh and ahhhhhh* and marvel at the brilliance of this statement? What does it have to do with anything else that was said here? And how does sending this dumb thing around show your friends you are thinking of them?  It takes one keystroke and 2 seconds to forward it to hundreds of people. I guess that's what you call *special* in your line of  thinking where everything is special and deserves equal merit.  It is also typical of the way you are trying to lead people to believe that *the little things* are what gives meaning to their lives. That it really doesn't take any effort to accomplish meaningful things. That it is easy. What is so special about sending this to everyone on your CClist? I guess it is special to you because that way you will get your twisted message sent to millions of people worldwide. Good one.

Original Author Unknown
Snotty replies courtesy of tinka of www.tinka.com
No false modesty here! I take credit for MY ideas and opinions!
>:)

3/17/00 Wow, kinda late, but I got something about this the other day, so here it is:

                Lol, I think you're getting less cynical, you ought to try and be a bit bitchier ;-)
Anyway, despite the total bunch of arse that it all was, just a small part of it is kinda slightly true, at least for me.
I commute to work on the train, 1 hour each way, every day. It's pretty much a journey into and through the arsehole of London. I don't enjoy it much, but I made this resolution to find something "beautiful" everyday. It's got to be tiny, otherwise insignificant things like a weed flowering between the tracks, a ray of sunlight through the clouds, a glimpse of a beautiful woman standing on a station. Anything.  The weird thing is, it's a rare day when I don't get one. Believe me, I'm a major grumpy bastard in the mornings. It doesn't take much to piss me off, big time.  So although that was just a truism chain email, it did have something to say - for me it's that beauty is there if you only look for it (if only for one hour of the day).

                Once again, thank god for the revolution. Maybe you should try to get a life that makes you happier. Personally I dont see how a weed flowering on a train track would ever make me happy. What's beautiful about a dumb old weed? Bitchy enough for ya?...>:)
 

Gay Day
12/8/99 There are two current issues here in California that affect gay people. One is in Orange County where a group of students wants to form a "Gay/ Straight Student Alliance" basically a club for gay and straight students. I do not know what the purpose of the club is but they claim it has something to do with tolerance. Whatever. Of course some parents are having a total cow over it and the kids have not been allowed to form the group yet (in Orange County, big surprise). They are appealing the decision with a lawsuit. Sheesh, chill out people. Let the kids form their little group. If you don't want your kids joining it then don't let them. If you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is wrong, then go ahead. And the kids who are forming the group should EXPECT that people will hate them. People who are opposed to homosexuality should not be allowed to force people not to be gay or prevent them from  forming gay groups and gay people should not attempt to force people to accept them and like them. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they do not hurt others. Tolerance goes both ways. Gay haters have to tolerate that gay people exist and gay people have to tolerate that other people will not like it.
             The other gay issue here in California is Prop22. Of course I couldn't actually find anything about the proposition itself on the web except for this little story about the cast of Will and Grace opposing it.  Apparently the State of California, since it does not allow same sex marriages to be legally recognized, wants to prevent same sex marriages that take place elsewhere (where it is allowed) from being recognized if the couple lives in or moves to California. *Pro Family* groups are having a hissy fit that gay marriages could actually be recognized by the government. Why ANY marriage has to be sanctioned by the government is beyond me. WHY does the government have to be involved in every aspect of our lives down to the most personal of relationships? I guess there was a reason back in the old days, but I do not know what it was. I always hear it is for income tax purposes nowadays. Whatever with that. Maybe we should eliminate income taxes altogether, but till that happens I do not see why married people should enjoy tax benefits over non married people. Doesn't seem too fair to me. Government should remove its intrusive self from personal relationships and stop being responsible for marriage and keeping track of everyone's personal lives. If you REALLY want to get married and feel it is important to have the commitment performed in front of god and other witnesses, then go find a church to get married in.  If you need it to be legally binding then go find an attorney to draw you up a contract. If it is personal and spiritual, then go stand under the stars and pledge your eternal love to one another. Hell, go do all three. There is REALLY no reason for the state to be involved. They perform no function that could not be handled by a private entity in regards to marriage. We should be in charge of our own relationships. Of course then gay marriages would be allowed to occur. Oh, the horror. Mind your own freakin' business and leave other people and their relationships alone.

12/30/99 I only got one note on this so far, so here it is:

                  "I personally have no problem with gay people deciding to get married and be recognized as a family unit here in california.  I'm not gay so the issue doesn't directly affect me.  I can see why 2 people would want to proncounce their love and affection to the world just as a man and woman would chose to together.  But I can also see it from this point of view:  Pretty soon in the future, groups of people will be allowed to join forces and pronounce "marriage" just a 2 people, no matter what sex they are, they'll challenge the courts, just to challenge them.
The gay people I know are usually very loud, flamboyant, and willing to put up a good fight for just about anything.  If that's what they want, more power to them, but they need to keep in mind what this will open up in the future and what kinds of court battles could destroy children when there are 4 men and 3 women who all share 1 kid.  I think it would be a matter of the faternal parents, but then what about visitation rights?"

                   These things would have to be worked out. It is about time people took responsibility for their own actions and stuck with their commitments without having Big Daddy government being involved. There are already custody battles going on on a daily basis with parents, grandparents, live in lovers, etc. I do not think this would be any different if the state did not manage marriage. It would probably happen even less as more people would be willing to sign legal agreements regarding their commitments and/or be backed up by a church of some kind that could help mediate in the tough times. Marriage and families have deteriorated. The government has NOT actually done a good job. They serve NO purpose at all. We do not need tougher *laws* governing marriage. We need the government to get out of it altogther and let private enterprise and individuals handle it.

3/23/00 This topic has not been discussed here lately. Proposition 22 passed in California in the last election. This means we have a new law somewhere on the books that says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Whatever. I think you should be able to marry whoever you want. Why does the state have to be involved? Why do married people or people with children have more rights than everyone else? Anyhow, I got some other email about this subject so here it is:

               Let gay couples get married.  Fine by me, I'm not hurt any.  Don't let gay couples adopt children.  There's a certain father/mother thing that needs to exist for a healthy upbringing.
               I guess I was glad for the gay community because they didn't get married.  It's sad that people need a diamond ring to feel that someone loves them or is commited to them.  Then again, more marraiges end up in divorce than marriages that stay together.  So now that it is possible for gay couples to get married in VT, will they cheapen their relationships with rings and ceremonies?
             Not to beat down on marraiges.  I personally would think marraige would be an official anouncement to everyone that 'hey we're in love and we've been that way for a few years', but no one really thinks like that.

              Yes! Let them get married! But under no circumstances should they be able to adopt children! It is harmful to the children! (note the sarcasm in my tone) Evidently it is also harmful for divorced people or widowed people to raise their kids, too since there is no *mother/father thing* there. And what about gay people giving birth to children? Should the kids be taken away under the same arguement?
             Never mind that many people (the majority of voters in california, apparently) think it is harmful to let gay people even get married.
             This person appears to agree with me on the idiocy of state sanctioned relationships but wants the state to sanction adoptions/child rearing. How about everyone leaving everyone else alone and minding their own friggin business? There are many people who were raised by gay couples that are not *harmed*. There are many people who are raised by heterosexual couples who are harmed and even killed. Let's punish people who harm their children, NOT try to prevent certain groups from adopting.
 

12/23/99There Is No There There
                 The people at Time Magazine honored Jeff Bozos (Bezos) as person of the year this week. They claimed that he has a great idea and generated a lot of *excitement* about the internet. Well, yea, it is a pretty cool idea but it has not really worked yet. It will lose millions of dollars this year and won't turn a profit until 2002 at the earliest, if at all! Why give him such a distinctive honor? He has basically just ridden the tide of the dotcom mania in a stock market fueled by a good economy and an ignorant public. He has made millions by selling stock for a company that can't even turn a profit. Only a total moron couldn't make THAT company turn a profit. Time Magazine should have waited till amazondotcom made some money and proved itself as more than just a *great idea* before claiming Mr. Bozos as such a fab guy. They should have found and saluted one of the thousands of other people whose internet companies are also great ideas and HAVE made a profit. Of course this is the magazine who gave the person of the year title jointly to Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr last year so I guess I shouldn't have expected much.

12/30/99 I got several emails reminding me that Time Magazine also awarded Person Of The Year to Hitler. I had forgotten that. They are clearly morons. Here is one of the letters I got:

                 "You are correct that Jeff Bezos has yet to prove his virtue as a business man, and that his major success seems to have been to generate hype for the e-trade. I have not read the Time article (yet) but if I recall correctly the "Man of the Year" award is given to people (or things) that have been in the news or public eye. Not for actually accomplishing or achieving great things.  Now if the article on Bezoswas written in a fawning, boot licking tone, that point might have been lost. Remember, Hitler has won the award several times, as has Stalin.  Then again so has Einstein and the personal computer.  It's a dubious honor at best. Just FYI. "

                 Dubious to say the least. Einstein was just awarded Person of the Century. He is probably turing over in his grave. At least they didn't wind up choosing Ghandi or FDR.
 

12/30/99 Individualism
              I got two emails about my link to the Individualist Ring wondering how that was not a contradiction. Here is one of them:

             "and it struck me as ironic there could be an "Individualist Ring." Even if their views are radically different, by hooking up with a ring of other people and labeling themselves, now they're part of a group and have ceased
being individualists..."

This is what I told him:
             It is a categorization of sites that are about a particular topic (in this case individualism and non socialism in the political spectrum specifically).They arent isolationsists and they aren't even about being *different*, it is mainly about a particular political belief. They chose to cooperate with one another to bring hits to their own sites....that is much different that forced socialism such as welfare and socialized health care.

Then he asked me again:

              "Oh, I know its purpose and all. I just thought it was sorta funny, on a pseudo-philosophical level. Here's a stupid thought: Isn't sharing links to generate traffic sorta socialist? You're getting help (a form of welfare, a free handout) from the other site (which is sorta like the state or government). Of course its voluntary; or is it? Could a site survive without any crosslinks? Hmm...erm, that probably doesn't make any sense."

So I answered him again:
               It is not a free handout, duh, I link back to them. I send them hits, they send me hits. It is a link EXCHANGE.
THAT is always the point I try to make. There is a difference between a handout, where I am forced to give you something and you give me nothing (socialism, collectivism) and a capitalistic exchange where it is (a) voluntary and (b) an exchange, I give you something and you give me something. We decide what each thing is worth and decide if we want to trade. And no, a site could not survive without links unless it got publicity from sources outside the web like radio or tv, which would accomplish is the same thing as links anyhow.

Another person tried to get sassy on my ass about it too, he asked me if it was an oxymoron and went on to say:

               "Well here's their definition: "The Individualist Ring is a nonpartisan webring of sites with two major purposes: the promotion of a strong sense of individualism and firm opposition to any form of collectivism.  This is just a general outline, of course.  To become a member of the Individualist Ring, you must have an individualistic site, or a site that has some individualistic content on it."
                So first you have a collective of anti-collectivists. That's an oxymoron right there! Then you have somebody giving you RULES on what makes YOU an individualist. If you can only join this ring because THEY deem your site "individualistic," then that's not individualistic at all! A true individualist belongs to no Ring, the way I see it. Wearing that link on your site is like wearing a badge. And wearing a badge is like wearing a uniform. Which of course is the antithesis of individualism."

Here is my reply:

                 You have the CHOICE to belong and to follow their rules if you decide to belong. You can use them for your own promotion and to get more hits and traffic to your site. They do not tell you specifically what your site has
to contain, just the general type of site they will accept (this is an obvious necessity and if you need me to explain why, I will).  You can join if you want to and follow their rules. If you do not want to follow their rules, you can join another group or ring whose rules you do want to follow. The type of collectivism that they and I am against is the type that is forced upon you by the government. If you want to be an *individualist* in YOUR take on the word, you would never get any traffic to your website because you would not want to join ANY list, be it a search engine, a ring or even the yellow pages. You would not participate in *society* at all and would have to live out in the desert alone and grow your own food and sew your own clothes. That is just stupid. it is not what individualism is about. Individualism is not isolationsim. I am not opposed to people voluntarily using each other for mutual benefit. In fact, that is the crux of a capitalistic society which I am all for.
 

2/17/00 Santa Monica At It Again
       The People's Republic of Santa Monica is at it again. They are trying to pass a law that bans people from using cell phones while driving. A lot of you probably think this is a great idea. But think about it for a minute. There ARE a lot of idiot cell phone users, this is true. However, there are a lot of decent drivers who are responsible while using a cell phone (like me). People can be distracted by many things in the car such as the radio, the cigarette lighter, the screaming children in the back seat.  Should we ban these things too?  I think a better thing to do, instead of passing yet ANOTHER oppressive law, is to actually ticket and punish people who drive recklessly for WHATEVER reason. It is currently illegal to swerve all over the place, to not signal when making a lane change, to run red lights, to almost hit pedestrians and a host of other unsafe actions. Why target cell phone users? If someone is using a cell phone and not being a menace, the cops haves to deal with this person instead of going out and dealing with people who ARE being menaces? What sense does this make?
       People like to get themselves all worked up over things like this. They do not like it when people use cell phones in restaurants (which, by the way, is banned in many restaurants now by the restaurant owners). They have a general hatred of cell phone users because they are *rude*. Of course some of them are rude (remeber that most groups of people have idiots in them, cell phone users are not exempt) however, this is not a reason to punish ALL cell phone users.
       The cell phone is a very useful invention. Not just for business but for people who want to call and check on their kids, for people who need to find the address of a place when they are lost (a lot safer than getting out of the car to find a pay phone in a dangerous neighborhood), and obviously for use in an emergency.  Don't get lost or car jacked in Santa Monica! You might get a ticket if you call for help!
       Don't send me a lot of mail about how people  should pull over to the side of the road to make their calls. If you do, I will know you have never been to Santa Monica. It is impossible to find a parking place there. That's why they have all those nice city run parking lots that charge you three bucks to park in. Never mind that taxpayers paid to have them built to begin with! The city should run them as a public service for free just like the banks should run their ATMs for free to non customers as a public service! Ok Ok Ok, DON'T get me started on THAT.

3/17/00 Naturally I got some mail from people who disagreed with me. I really don't think these people even bother to read what I write before spewing the opposite opinion. Here it is:

           I have to agree with this law as I have seen incredibly stupid driving by people with mobile phones. But perhaps this is only in England.
           I don't agree with you about the radio being a distraction as it becomes background music and it is something that you do not concentrate on, where a phone call requires a certain amount of concentration especially if it is business orientated. With more and more lunatics on the road these days, driving requires more alertness and when using a mobile your attention is divided. If a person is distracted by a cigarette lighter they must be brain dead!
           In England if you are caught using a cell phone whilst driving, you can be stopped for driving without care and attention or dangerous driving (depending on what mood the old bill is in).
           I have no problem with people using mobiles in public places and restaurants, although I detest people I'm with using them (my mates don't use them in front of me as the last one who did, I broke his phone) but it can be a bit annoying, but like everything else, if you don't like it, ignore it.
           I am not a cell phone hater as I also have one that I use for business, but not whilst driving.

            Where do I begin? Well, I guess I can begin by saying that we (Americans) got AWAY from England and it's oppressive laws a couple hundred years ago and I for one am extremely grateful for that.
            Evidently they are unable to handle thinking for themselves over there and must pass all sorts of laws aimed at idiots and punish decent people in the meantime. I heard they are trying to pass a law outlawing *too skinny* models from appearing in advertisements there because it *causes anorexia and bulemia*. That is another story, one that I have to find something about on the web before I do a rant on it. Don't worry, I will....>:)
           ANYHOW, as for the cell phones, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE people who drive like idiots while on cell phones should be given a citation, like any other reckless driver. WHY punish everyone, including responsible people? No one has answered this for me. Apparently this person is under the impression that EVERYONE drives irresponsibly while on a cell phone. I resent this. We are not all babies that need to be told what to do. Many many people can drive fine while using a phone. Why punish them? Someone please answer this for me, especially those of you who think outlawing them while driving is a good idea.
           This person also did not address my issue of people being distracted by bratty children. I see a lot of this too. I often  manage to get behind a mini van fully of spoiled children with a harried mother trying to cope. Should we outlaw kids in cars? Maybe we should mandate that minivans and passenger cars have those plexiglass dividers between the front and back seats like taxis have to prevent the driver from being distracted by people in the back seat. Actually, while we are at it, how about a full plexiglass shield around the entire drivers compartment so that he is not distracted by anything!? Great idea, I'm gonna write to my congressperson.

3/17/00 Someone caught my comment on the parking lots in Santa Monica and sent me an email about it. Of course I have to comment.

This is what he said:

              Sounds like cell phones are being cited as the cause of accidents more down there than they are up here near San Francisco.  I might see someone on the phone and driving at the same time maybe once a month.  Almost sounds like the insurance companies using this as a tactic to try and increase their $$$.
               I'd sure like to see $3 parking in downtown SF.  The cheapest garage around here is about $16 (the highest is $28!) Oh, well.  I guess everyone's just trying to make a buck these days.

             I lived in SF for about 6 and a half years and I remember all the parking lots being run by private companies, not the city. Maybe they aren't like that anymore.
            My point when making that comment was that we already paid for the lots in Santa Monica (when they were built with tax dollars) and then we have to pay again when parking there.
            Some official made the comment that the banks should run their ATMs for non customers for free as a public service, which made me laugh in light of the parking lot issue. I only heard the comment somewhere and was unable to find any documentation about it so I never went any further with a rant about it. I HAD to throw it in SOMEWHERE tho! Sheesh, I couldn't let such a moronic statement go uncommented on.
            ANYHOW, I have no problem with private parking lots charging whatever they want. Parking in SF is very valuable and should be treated as such. Of course it is such a liberal place that I would not be a bit surprised if those lots were run by the city...people paid for them to be built, people own the land they are built on, yet people still have to pay outrageous fees to park. Guess it's better than taking public transportation. Speaking of public transportation.....

back to the cell phone issue now. I got another email about it:

           Read your diatribe on Santa Monica's new law about ticketing people who use cell phones while driving. I think you've got some really good points in your note. I know that 'statistically' there's a certain kind of sense to the City Council's actions - people who drive and use cell phones are 4 times as likely to get into accidents (per insurance companies).
           However, I think the points you raise about reckless driving and endangerment and all the rest are more applicable than the statistics. People have hands-free phones that still distract them from the road (or kids or whatnot) - if the cops don't see you with one, you're not breaking the law? Seems to be discriminatory against those people that can't get hands-free phones! :) I've driven and talked and dialed and nearly gone off the road a couple of times and yes, I probably should have pulled over, but in reality, there's not a lot in Colorado or Wyoming *to* hit, so... :) I certainly could have been better about my cell phone habits, but is it criminal?
           I agree with you that it's not - it's the effect of being careless that is. And if you are, it shouldn't matter whether you have a cell phone or are playing games with the kids in the backseat or are on the receiving end of great oral sex - it's the result of that distraction that's the issue and that should be the focus.

Next time please give me an URL to link to where I can see the *facts*. That goes for everyone else who writes to me too. I'm cracking down on all this messy debate!

3/23/00 More mail on this:

          Just wanted to let you know that in El Paso, TX, the City Council was thinking of this idea as well.  They decided that it would hurt those userswho use cell phones responsibly, so they decided to check on the feasibility on mandatory hands-free device use for cell phones while driving.  It's still in committee, but to me this sounds a lot better than an outright ban. The state of Texas is thinking of passing a similar bill making it the law
in the state. I use a headset for my cell phone anyway.  total cost... $10 at Target for the headset.

Sure, good idea. However, not everyone drives like an idiot while on the phone. You only notice the ones who do.

Hey, the first guy sent me the URLs...thanks!!

         Noticed on The Rant that you were looking for URLs about the increased risk of accidents for cell phone use. I've attached a couple that talk about it. The NHTSA's doesn't say that there is any significant increase while the insurance company's does (big surprise :). Hope they help:
http://www.eig.com/smos/smo97072.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/wireless/ (this is the National Highway & Transportation Safety Administration's report)

          Yea, big surprise. I guess you will believe whatever you want to believe and use whichever statistics coroborate your point of view.

More:

         I read your opinion on cell phones and Santa Monica.  I am guessing people who use cell phones in their cars will be displeased with such a law and people who don't are pleased with the law.
         I agree that the cell phone is a great thing.  I am a New Englander, and a cell phone helped me out of a ditch one snowy night on an empty stretch of road through the mountains.  Otherwise I was looking at 7 miles of walking with no boots through 6 inches of snow.
         I have a problem with people using cell phones as they drive.  I agree with you that not everyone who uses a cell phone while driving causes problems.  However, you can not focus on a phone conversation and driving at the same time.  If you're calling to let someone know you're running late, that's fine.  You're not attempting to focus on the conversation.  It's a simple relaying of some information.  It's usually the business people that piss me off.  They're so focused on business that they don't drive correctly.  Countless are the times some jerk has wandered into my lane with his nice little Lexus, forcing me to take evasive action.
         The trouble is that the brain has to use creativity to imagine the person you are calling.  This is why a phone conversation is different than a face to face conversation.  Even if you don't think it's different - it is.  You subconsciously shift your focus during a phone conversation.. I guess all I can do is to say 'think about it'.  Think about the last phone call you had that lasted for half an hour that you were part of a conversation.  What were you looking at?  I personally don't remember what I looked at or focused on outside of the phone call.  Maybe a poster I stared at or something, but I really wasn't looking at the poster.  A face to face conversation involves more senses as opposed to 'hearing', which a phone call uses.  Thus, you're able to focus on other things.
        I'm not saying everyone who has a cell phone ought not use it while driving, and I am not saying everyone who uses one while driving sucks.  I'd say about half of the people I've encountered who use cell phones while driving exhibit a loss of ability while the phone is in use.  Should that other half have to 'suffer'?  Should they have to wait five minutes before they can talk to someone?  It's a small sacrifice to make the roads safer.

        What do you want to do? Make phone calls to say you are running late legal and long conversations not legal? "Excuse me, sir, I think you were chatting a bit too long on that phone, what exactly were you talking about?"  Uhhhuh.
         I am not into *sacrifice* for others. I am not an idiot and I don't drive like an idiot. I do not care to sacrifice anything for the sake of idiots. Ever. I should not have to live my life differently because some people are jerks. if *I* am not a bad driver while on the phone, I should be allowed to talk on the phone when I drive. If I become a bad driver and get into an accident, I should have to make restitution to the person I hit, same as if I were drunk or arguing with my kids in the back seat and got into a wreck. If I drive like a maniac and a cop sees me I should be ticketed the same as if I were driving like a maniac because I was tired or having a case of *road rage*.
        This is a very simple concept that has gone away in this society. We are not supposed to be punished or penalized for other people's actions, only for our own.
        The person who wrote this email made me giggle because he wrote me two others, also. The first was about gun control. He agreed with me pretty wholeheartedly and was concerned with people's rights. The second and third emails (this one on cell phones and one on homosexuals) partly agreed with me. He was a little concerned with people's rights. He thinks cell phones are useful, but then again thinks people should *sacrifice* for safer roads in general and he agreed that gay people should be able to get married but not adopt children. His opinions are not unique. I get a lot of this.
        People want to allow others to have freedom in certain circumstances, the circumstances that THEY think are ok. The issues THEY themselves want to be left alone on. They are never in favor of granting freedoms to others on things that they don't agree on. This is pretty stupid and quite unfair. It's ok to own a gun - this is a free country!! (never mind that gun violence is  totally out of control in the U.S. ) but it is not ok for homosexuals to adopt children (because it is harmful to the children)
        Can you see the lack of logic in these arguements? Do you want to *protect* people or not?  You cannot protect everyone from everything. There are too many stupid and irresponsible people in the world. If you want to prevent THEM from doing stupid things, you will wind up preventing responsible individuals from doing the same things in a non harmful manner. Things like owning a gun, using a cell phone while driving, and adopting and raising decent children, the list goes on and on. Which rights do YOU want to continue to have? Which ones should we take away from others? Send me some email about it, I am dying to know what you think!
        The only way to deal with this stuff is to actually punish people who do bad things. For example: we SHOULD punish people who kill with guns, or people who let their kids kill with guns, NOT make guns illegal or tighten restrictions on responsible people getting them. We SHOULD punish people who get in wrecks or drive badly while talking on the phone, NOT make it illegal for responsible people to use a phone while driving. We SHOULD punish child abusers, NOT make it illegal for certain groups to adopt children based on vague assumptions of parental fitness.
 
 

3/17/00 Subway in Los Angeles?
          Yep, we actually have a subway here in L.A. I do not care to go into all the sordid details of how it got built and how expensive it was and how many people were embezzling from it and how many workers were injured and how it really doesn't go anywhere interesting but I WILL comment on my absolute favorite part of the L.A. subway: There are NO TURNSTILES! You are supposed to buy a ticket from a machine and go get on the train. There is NO ONE to take your ticket and no automatic turnstiles to make sure you pay. I have been on subways all over the world and nowehre have I encountered this idiocy. But WAIT! It gets better! We asked someone who was sweeping trash about the tickets and he said that the LAPD rides the trains and does spot checks asking for people's tickets!! HAHAHA this has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard!!!!! The COPS! The cops checking subway tickets! As if they don't have anything better to do! We are using valuable police to check tickets on the subway instead of just building fucking turnstiles!!!!!!! And as you might expect, there were NO cops to be seen anywhere. Sooooooo, everyone who lives in LA and anyone who visits, go on down and take your free subway ride....of course as I mentioned, it doesn't really go anywhere....one of the main routes is from Hollywood to Compton....wooooo, they should call it The Drug Dealer Express.
 

3/17/00 Guns!
               Someone sent this to me about guns and gun control. I have not discussed guns and gun control here before because I am sure it is even more inflamatory a subject than hate crimes or organ selling. I do enjoy discussion but avoid overly emotional issues because people write to me spewing nonsense and illogical crap based on *feelings*  that is impossible to argue against because it makse no sense. This was well written tho, so I will publish it here. Anyone who wants to debate, please email me, but I will tell you again, if you don't state logical facts or you are speaking from a purely emotional point of view, I will throw your letter in the trash or post it on my idiot email page. Here goes:

              After hearing about the school shooting this week and reading the response by the President, I am appalled by the ignorance shown by our leader and other people of our country. The President asks where the gun came from and how this wouldn't have happened if we had more stringent gun control.
             I ask "why was the thought of shooting a girl with a gun even considered by a six year old." I am not a gun owner but I cannot believe how people can think that a law could have prevented a shooting with a stolen gun. I am a businessman and what I see being done in this country is a lot of micromanagement regarding violence. If something horrible like this happens, they have to create a law to prevent it.
          We all know how we obey the laws laid out by our wise legislation. For once, I would like to see the question "why are these things (gun shootings, violence, etc) more prevalent today than 50 years ago?" There were still gangs and guns back then. We need to focus on the values and discipline that were used back then and incorporate
them into our daily lives. Talk with some of the more seasoned individuals of our society. Sure there were fights back then, but not with knives or guns. The intent generally wasn't to end one's life or maim them for life.
          Violence is in everyday entertainment and is generally acceptable. We need to entertain the idea that it is this and not the lack of laws (gun control and otherwise) that is the root of the problem. The need to fix the problem immediately through laws will not work. Not only will we still have the problems of violence, we are eliminating our civil rights in the process.
          Perhaps we, the citizens, should consider re-evaluating our family values and start the solution to violence at home. Teach the values of tolerance, responsibility and discipline. Since children learn by example, maybe we as adults could consider re-instilling these values into ourselves as well and quit blaming others for things that may be our own doing. Another thing we might look at are the agencies that have time to legally pursue a parent/adult for spanking a child that leaves red marks but are oblivious to a child whose parent(s) are in jail and lives in a crack house. It is hard to teach discipline when we are not legally allowed to use certain forms of discipline if the situation calls for it. This is an excellent example of how laws created through micromanagement are hurting our civil rights and our society.

         There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books in the USA.  Adding more laws ISN'T going to help! When something isn't working, stop doing it!  Try something else!  Sheeeeeesh, are you people stupid?????  The thing he said about teaching tolerance, responsibility, and discipline is a good point, however, I contend that decent people are ALREADY doing this. We cannot force the ones who are not doing it to do it (this would go against his opinion that people should be allowed to raise their kids as they see fit).

3/23/00 Here is some more mail about it:

            I agree that we don't need MORE gun control laws.  Many of these school shootings can probably be solved by teaching children and adults how to operate and use a gun.  If the child knows how to use the gun and its potential, he may not try to use it and kill others.  And, even if they still feel the need to shoot someone, at least they have a better chance of not hitting anyone else.  Guns are an important part of our history and culture.
All you hear about are the bad things guns have done.  Look at our history, the United States has NOT been invaded by a foriegn power in over 200 years, compared to France, which was invaded during World War 2.  The reason we haven't been invaded is because most people have guns and have the legal right to use them.  Guns are a tool that if used correctly can keep safe your family and country.

Here is another one:

         How refreshing to hear logic instead of knee jerk solutions. Since gun control has been enacted society has gotten much more permissive and out of control. If you have no respect for others or the law , then power is the only language you will understand.

This is from the person who thinks we should sacrifice our cell phones for the sake of idiots and that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children:

         Enforcing current gun laws as opposed to throwing a few more into the mix is a step in the right direction.  But like the letter (and then personal opinion following) you posted stated, it ain't fixing the problem.
         It starts with the television.  Why is it that I can watch people acting out murders and fights, I can watch horrific car accidents, I can watch brutal sports, but I can't watch nudity?  Everyone I know has breasts and/or private parts.  Everyone!  We were born with them.  They basically facilitate one of the major reasons why we're here.  To keep our genetic material going!  It's important and it's beautiful.
        So why is it that I have to watch Cinemax late at night to see nudity, and it has this perverted awfulness to it?  It's absurd where our priorities lie.  We have kids going nuts about this Pokemon nonsense which involves cute little critters doing unspeakable acts of violence.  Hello?
       I don't think it's healthy for a six year old to watch people going at it, but if he sees a breast - who cares?  But no, instead of emphasizing respect for our anatomies and their functionality, we get things like Pokemon, Power Rangers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  All based on violence.  GI Joe, Transformers, Voltron, Transor Z... ever cartoon I grew up on involved violence as the end-all problem solver.
      I would have preferred creative problem solving and humor.  And if there was some fellow with his shirt off during the summer and his female companion was next to him, her shirt should have been off too.  Not because I'd like to see her breasts, but because then I wouldn't be so frickin' conditioned to think the sight of breasts is the greatest thing in the world.  They ought to be admired, not lusted over.  Imagine a concert with a girl on her boyfriend's shoulders NOT being taunted "Show Us Your Tits!"
      And I really don't buy into the whole "Parents have to regulate what their kids are watching" deal.  Not only have parents opted to let the television raise their kids, but people who are 'anti-censorship' are using those parents as a way out of their own responsibility as members of society.

       Everyone has someone else to blame. Why not blame the actual perpetrator? People do things for many reasons. Perhaps some people do kill because they see it on TV (I personally doubt this theory but I suppose it is possible) but it is ridiculous to say that TV is the cause of all gun violence.
       Come on now, lets punish bad guys instead of trying to figure out why they do the bad stuff and absolving them from all responsibility. Oh yea, we aren;t allowed to be responsible for our own actions here in America, I forgot.
       I do agree with his opinions on nudity and how repressed we are in this country about nudity and sex. He is pretty much dead on correct about it.
       Of course, he is dead on wrong about parents and their responsibilities to their kids. Parents are the ONLY ones responsible for what their kids do. When I am paid to babysit your kids, I will. Till then, if they are looking at my website (or any other website or any tv show or magazine or movie)  I am not going to do anything about it. Of course, again, we want to put the responsibility of child rearing onto *society* (meaning I should raise your kids) instead of on who it belongs to, the people who actually conceive and have these little tykes.

3/23/00 Responsibility
I got this email from someone on the issue of gun control but it made me think about other issues, too.

         Being from England and guns being illegal over here (thank God), I do not understand a lot of your gun laws. How easy is it for a person to obtain a weapon? What requisites does a person need to receive a gun?
         I am curious as it does seem that the amount of shootings seems to be increasing in the US which seems to attribute itself to the ease of which guns are available. I could be wrong, the press in this country (as in most others) do seem to exaggerate everything.

        I do not think that the amount of shootings is due to the availablity of guns. I think it is due to people's lack of responsibility for their guns or for their actions with guns. Irresponsible people allow their guns to be used by their children. Criminals who use guns are not really held accountable/responsible for their actions. They are put in jail and let out again over and over. There are more irresponsible people in the US than ever before.  This irresponsibility is caused by the pervasiveness of the government. The government is involved in everything and doesn't let people use their own brains to decide if they are able to do something without hurting another person. They are also not allowed to handle their own problems or deal with the ramifications of their actions. A few idiots do something stupid and there's immediately a law passed that punishes  decent people (cell phones). People do not manage their money or refuse to get a job and the government steps in to *help* them (socialism). Someone feels *oppressed* by someone else and the government comes along to hold his hand and spank the mean guy (hate crimes). People kill others with guns and it is blamed on TV violence(guns). We aren't even allowed to decide what to do with our own bodies (drugs, organs) or our own personal relationships (gay rights). When all of our responsibility is taken away, what do you expect is going to happen? Yea, people will forget how to be responsible or will intentionally be irresponsible knowing that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Meanwhile, we decent responsible people are slowly having all of our rights taken away.

10/13/00Don't Waste Your Vote!
Please read this rant even if you were not planning on voting in the upcoming US election.

I have been getting a lot of email lately from people telling me why I should vote for Al Gore or George W. Bush for president in the upcoming election. Or, as I like to call them "Bore and Gush". Well, as you might expect, I am not voting for either of them.

You shouldn't either, and here's why: They are both essentially the same person. They disagree on very few things and they will both screw up the country.  It used to be that the Democrats were into social freedoms and fiscal control and the Republicans were into social controls and fiscal freedoms. Now they both want control over movies and tv and video games and the internet and gay rights. They both want to control the rest of us for the sake of *the children*. They both want to tax us into oblivion to save Social Security for all those old fogies who couldn't manage to save their own money. At least that is what I could gather from those lame brained *debates* where they seemed more intent on being nice to each other than actually discussing any issues in depth.  Screw that. One of them IS going to win....WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR VOTE. We will wind up with the same crap we are dealing with now (basically erosion of all of our rights) no matter who wins. You may think you are voting for "the lesser of two evils" when you choose one or the other but the fact is that they are both evil in many similar and different ways. Neither of them wants anyone to have any control over or responsibility for themselves, their kids or their money. And as I mentioned, one of them will win whether or not you vote for them.

Therefore, you should vote for someone else. Vote for someone you REALLY believe in, a party you REALLY agree with. DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE on one of these mainstream yokels! Vote for another party! They will NOT, of course,  win but the more votes they get, the more viable they will be as a party and the more likely they are to have their sensible views put out into the mainstream. When that happens, the major parties will have to stand up and take notice and will have to discuss issues that REALLY matter without a lot of rhetoric. They will be forced to discuss the core of the issues instead of just the fluff. They will be forced to acknowledge other ideas and other points of view.

Naturally, I encourage you to vote for Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate. Check out what they have to say at least. Read the FAQ, visit the self-gov site and take the world's smallest political quiz.  And, just to show that I am receptive to other opinions and views, here are some other links for you to check out: The Green Party- (Ralph "I love laws!" Nader's party),  The Reform Party- The Pat "I'm actually Hitler in disguise" Buchanan sect, The Reform Party-The John"quantum physicist" Hagelin Sect (This site wasn't working when I wrote this but maybe it will be when you read it), The Natural Law Party (Hagelin is all over this site, too, he seems to be in some sort of coalition with these people. Maybe that's why his site is not working). I never knew much about this group so I read their platform just now and it actually seems fairly reasonable. I thought they were psycho anti abortion people but it doesn't really look like that from reading their platform. They seem kinda science oriented which I dig. Maybe they are lying or maybe I was just confused before. Perhaps I will even vote for them one day! Nah, I love the Libertarians! If anyone knows anything about The Natural Law Party, send me some email about them. Here is another site that talks about Ralph Nader. He is a pretty amusing and intelligent guy and I used to have a mad crush on him cuz I like all his consumer advocacy, however, I think he is mistaken in his ideas about laws and how many we should have. He also thinks government should solve all the country's problems and I think the government should get the hell out and let people solve their own problems. So, that's a fundamental difference which made break up with Ralph and move over to the Libertarians. I still think he's cute tho...:) There are lots of other parties in America, but I think the rest of them are lame so I am not going to discuss them here. If you don't like any of the ones I have discussed, you are REALLY on the fringe and might want to stop by this link ,which is a list of all the other parties on your way to the funny farm to choose who you will be voting for if they let you out by the election.

So, go on and look at those links and please, please, please choose someone you like and vote your conscience! That is what the voting process is all about! That is what makes this country great! Choices! New opinions and ideas! Let's help get these ideas and opinions out there into the mainstream....most of us do NOT agree with Bore and Gush on many things. Most of us are much more in line with one of these other parties and their ideology. These parties have been unable to participate for so long because they do not have the big money to make their views known....this is changing with the advent of the world wide web, so let's all help the change along! Your vote DOES matter when you vote for a third party candidate so Go Vote!!!!!!!!! Wooo!!!!!!

11/10/00 Electoral College, Florida, etc.
             As you know, I think both Bore and Gush are both equally lame and I do not give a rat's ass which one is actually elected as president. I am giving an unbiased opinion based on my interpretation of things. I may be mistaken in how things work but I am NOT operating out of some kind of personal bias according to who I think should be the next president. That said, I have a few opinions on the electoral college and on what is going on in Florida.
            Today Hillary Clinton called for the elimination of the electoral college. She is a moron. The founding fathers were brilliant in their design. This electoral college thing that no one understands and that seems so antiquated is actually in need of being used today, 200 years after it was invented. The way I see it, the electoral college serves at least two purposes. The first is this: In the U.S. we have a system that allows for a balance of power between the interests of the states and the interests of the people. Why do the states need representation and not just the people? Why doesn't the *will of the people* rule?  States have so few of their own rights nowadays that we often forget that the states are their own entities (but thats another whole issue!!!) but they are. The more populous states should not be able to determine how things go in this country.  Smaller states need equal representation. For example, this is why we have the congress. The congress is made up of the senate, which has two representatives per state (giving each state equal representation) and the house of representatives which has representatives based on population (giving representation of the people). This is a balance. In this election it appears that Gore won the popular vote. Bush seems to have won the majority of the states. How do we balance this? We use the electoral college to break the *tie* between the states and the population. Remember, the states are their own entities with their own interests (we CANNOT forget this, it is extremely important and I will tell you why in another rant on another day).
            The second reason the electoral college exists is to help deal with irregularities in elections. Now,more than ever, we need the electoral college to do it's job. The mess in Florida is out of control. If you dont know what it going on there, turn your TV on. I am not going to explain it all here because at this point it is all just rumours and if you want to know, there are a million places for you to get the info. Basically they cannot figure out who won the popular vote in Florida. However, the electoral college members in Florida are not bound by law to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote. So, it really does not matter who won the popular vote. Let the electoral college members do their jobs on December 18, when they convene to vote and choose a winner (they don't even have to participate at all if they don't want to but I think that's pushing it a little).  They DO have numbers to work with  as far as popular vote, they are perfectly capable of choosing where their votes go. There are PEOPLE in the electoral college for this very reason. If we wanted to just give each state a certain number of electoral votes, we would not need to have actual people in the electoral college. I am not advocating ignoring what is going on down there in Florida by any means, and I will go into what I think should happen there in a minute. However, we are not some fake- democracy Central American country who holds it's elections for weeks on end and allows people to vote over and over again until we like the outcome. The electoral college can do the second part of it's job now and elect the president. We do not often need the electoral college, and usually they are irrelevant, however, THIS time, we need them. The founding fathers somehow knew we would. Let's use them.
              The mess in Florida, and now Wisconsin, needs to be addressed. I think the Federal Government has to get involved. I know you are surprised that I am advocating the feds getting involved, but this is one area where they would actually be useful and maybe even unbiased and uncorrupted.....I suppose the private sector is involved already to some degree because there are about a million lawyers down there now trying to deal with it. There needs to be a thorough investigation and revamping of the election system, maybe not only in Florida, but perhaps in ALL the states. I am not saying to take away the rights of the states to conduct their own elections but someone needs to investigate what went on there and fire people who screwed up and maybe even bring criminal charges to some of them. Election fraud is a huge crime in my opinion.
              Another part of the problem is that many of the people who alledgedly committed "irregularities" were poll workers, who are volunteers. You get what you pay for, people! The unemployed and old folks with no jobs and with too much time on their hands are basically the ones manning the polls. The states should hire these polling place people and train them and pay them, they way they do for the census. I am not a fan of the census for other reasons, but I think it is well run and you hardly ever hear about census fraud (at least not on this magnitude). As for confusing and misleading ballots which caused some people to accidentally vote for Buchanan and some people to vote twice, I say tough shit! This is kinda like an intelligence test for voters. If you are too stupid to vote for the correct candidate (anyone who paid attention or asked about it would have been able to figure it out) or if you are SO EXTRA stupid that you mark your ballot twice, then you deserve what you get. There are no do-overs in elections!
             Anyhow, to get rid of the electoral college it is going to take a constitutional amendment. These kinds of hearings (I think it is called a constitutional convention) always take forever and distract the people in Washington from doing other things, so I hope they try to do it. Then they won't have time to mess up anything else or pass any new laws. Of course, if we get to vote on it (I forget if we get to vote on constitutional amendments or not) I urge you all to vote to NOT change the constitution in this manner. When we do not need the electoral college, they just sit there quietly and we can ignore them but when we need them, like now, it is a good thing we have them.