shopify analytics tool



Roaming Millennial

Although I prefer reading, I do watch YouTube channels. I've been looking for one that explored libertarianism without being snarky or self-satisfied. I found it in Roaming Millennial. Here's an example.

It's things like this that give me hope for the future.


NeoNotes - Drug War

Most of the problems caused by illegal drugs come from the drugs being illegal in the first place. Portion control and purity are two of the obvious ones. If you don't know what the drugs have been cut with, you've no way of knowing what is a regular dose or what the side effects may be.

Something very similar happened during Prohibition. But when alcohol was legal again, things very quickly settled down. A beer had about the same kick as a shot of whiskey. And the reputable brewers and distillers had incentive to make sure that their products didn't kill or maim their customers.

A black market eliminates that incentive. Then, it's just about pushing as much product as possible, regardless of product safety or the long term effects.

And that means that many of the middlemen have no incentive for the long term either.

Okay, let's talk about the big elephant in the room.


By nearly any measure, alcohol has destroyed or damaged more lives by a couple of orders of magnitude than all the illegal drugs combined.

We trust people to be moderate in their alcohol use until they show otherwise.

Yet we also know that alcohol increases domestic abuse. We also know that alcohol DUI accounts huge amounts of property damage and injury and death. And we know that alcohol leads to unprotected and unwise sex for co-eds at college parties.

We trust people to be moderate in their alcohol use until they show otherwise.

Why alcohol and not a host of others?

I agree, we don't know what would happen.

But we also don't know exactly what is happening now. As Jacob Sullum writes in Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, we don't see the "average" drug user because the average drug user doesn't want to be associated with the extreme cases. The casual user won't stand out.

If we don't know what's happening now, then we can't tell what would happen.

I suspect that some would have addiction issues, just as people do now with tobacco and food. But I suspect that most if they used at all, would do it in moderation.

How much of the "drug culture" was because of the black markets in drugs? If something that costs pennies to grow/manufacture can be sold for hundreds/thousands of dollars because there is no legal market, why should legitimate sellers touch the stuff? Especially with the violence?

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


2016 Election

It's not the press or the self-appointed elites that are important in this election. It's the people.

As nearly as I can tell, Trump is kicking butt there.

I still don't trust him (vote NONE OF THE ABOVE), but Trump handles the press better than anyone since Reagan. He handles the politicos better than anyone since Johnson.

Neither of which qualifies him for the presidency. But it makes him uniquely qualified to upset the status quo.

And that is my issue with the mainstream press.

It's not that I object when they dig up stuff.

It's that they hide the stuff when the politico has a D after their name.

I've been avoiding discussing the election.

I don't like either candidate. I don't trust either candidate. And I definitely don't trust the two major parties.

Apparently the Clintons have been running the "dirty tricks" department of the DNC for some time. Remember, the Clinton campaign hasn't denied the Podesta emails. Or the
Project Veritas videos.

That doesn't make Hillary Clinton less qualified than Donald Trump. It does make her dishonest and untrustworthy.

Trump's appeal isn't because of his ideas. It's because he is the institution breaker. It's because he is the first Republican candidate in decades who is willing to take the fight down and dirty when the Democrats do it.

The Trump phenomenon is better understood as a colossal F U to all of the lies and broken promises politicians have hoisted upon the masses over the years. It is the savage blowback to the money-sucking rules and regulations and taxes that heavily burden a broad range of the middle and upper middle classes. It is a YUGE “suck it” to the self-aggrandizement and pocket lining that goes on within the Beltway. It is a swift backlash against the swarm of Beltway wannabees who want in on DC action in order to enrich themselves on the backs of the people, to the detriment of the country.
Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

First past the post voting inevitably means only two parties and that most voters don't vote for someone as much as they vote against someone. Both candidates are "unlikable."

None Of The Above. It's the only rational choice.


NeoNotes - Sin

Pardon, but who defines the sin?

Just as an obvious example, can an atheist or agnostic sin?

What about a Hindu? Or a Buddhist?

Do they have the same sins as a Baptist? Or a Catholic? Or a Mormon?

I know that most pagans including me will tell you that we don't believe in sin. Is that a sin too?

I am not justifying messing with kids. But these "universal standards" handed down from holy books and priests aren't universal.

Leaving aside for the moment questions like what gives one belief system primacy and the nature of the universe, you overlook a very important point.

It's between the individual and the Divine.

Which means no matter how strong your beliefs, no matter what your feelings, no matter how sure you are, there's nothing granting you power to judge the "sins" of another. Your own holy book preaches against that.

Which means if you want a society and culture that works, it can't be based on a specific religion. Especially if not everyone shares that religion.

Of course, we can't really leave aside those questions, can we?

And that leads to statements like "My God says your god isn't real." Even there, we're not talking about the Divine. We're talking about what priests and humans say about the Divine. We're saying that one rule system is better because it is based on Higher Truth™.

And that still comes down to whose version of Higher Truth™.

I use a working premise that Divinity is outside of human experience and comprehension. A Divine message for one person may not be intended for another. I won't even go into the differences between a revealed faith and an experienced faith because that will complicate things further.

You know that sin is defined by the Creator and codified in the Bible.

I don't know that and my experiences lead me to different conclusions.

And that those same sins are still sins regardless of whether or not one is a Christian.

There's the crux of it. What proof do you have? Your word, your holy book, and your belief. What proof do I have? My word, my experience, and my belief. What makes yours better than mine? What makes your belief superior to all others?

What do you think would happen if you tried to force your choice on others?

Why should non-Christians follow Christian beliefs if their chosen beliefs conflict?

Faith is worthless without a willing choice.

Part of the problem does occur because people use to their religion to control others.

Every single time I see people say that something should be illegal because it's a "sin," I know it's happening again.

Every. Single. Time.

Without exception. Because that is exactly what happens.

Religion can't be allowed the coercive power of government, government can't be allowed the moral justification of religion.

And that is what this libertarian is explaining.

I don't think I misinterpreted you.

I think that is a form of language manipulation that some Christians take for granted.

That's why it feels unnatural when someone else calls them on it.

OK, you're really going to go there.

You know that (Christians believe) sin is defined by the Creator and codified in the Bible.

With those two additional words, the sentence moves from a general case to a sub-class. I do know that many Christians prefer to think in terms of the general case because they believe their beliefs apply to everyone. Is it a conscious choice? Probably not. Is it manipulative? Yes.

Over generations, Christians have learned the speech behaviors that place their faith first and shield Christianity from criticism. They don't usually see it as wrong and don't always understand why non-Christians find it offensive.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

NeoNotes - Control

Yes, they did.

As a small "l" libertarian, I believe in people and not government.

I don't believe you should meddle in other's lives "for their own good." I don't believe in "do it for the children."

I believe that each individual should make their own choices and accept the consequences. I do not think that government or other people should shield them from that.

There's no other way to get a society of responsible adults.

There are two things I want to stress here. First that the university is a public employer and most importantly the female had committed no crime. She wasn't paid to lecture on feminism, the leather crowd, or Dianic witchcraft.

So why should she be denied employment at a university?

According to Mr. McCain, screening should have kept her from "living at taxpayer expense?"

Do I agree with her lifestyle? No. But if RSM wanted to keep her from working for a public university, he would need something more than religious reasons.

Do I think that Christianity should be protected from her and her beliefs?

No, and you shouldn't either.

When government intervenes to "protect" a set of ideas or a group from others in society, that means that people don't think that those ideas or that group can survive on it's own.

Think about that carefully. Because it works both ways.

It's not that the ideas are bad. It's that weak ideas and weak people are supported & shielded by government. The ideas aren't tested by real world experience. There's no incentive to get better. There's no reason to see if the ideas work in the first place.

Good ideas need to be challenged. There's a difference between using something and locking it away in a glass fronted cabinet.

I don't think she should have been denied employment. But I don't think she should have had a public forum to lecture on her lifestyle as the best lifestyle.

And oddly enough, that's exactly how it worked out.

Without government intervention.

Without others meddling "for her own good."

Just live and let live.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes - Homosexuality wasn't illegal

I'm too tired to play by the rules tonight, so I will lay it out.

Homosexuality wasn't illegal. It wasn't legalized. Certain homosexual acts were illegal, but not the status itself. What's more, you don't want homosexuality made illegal because it will become much more popular and any government that can make homosexuality illegal can also make heterosexuality illegal. All it takes is the right politicos in the right places. There's a long convoluted argument for both of those points, but I'm too tired to condense things right now.

Despite your personal beliefs, homosexuality is not the issue. It's the distraction.

Yes, the distraction. It's the pink pantaloons and bared breasts and freaky tattoos. It's all designed to make you nervous, to make you clutch your Bible harder, and maybe even make you froth at the mouth.

It's the distraction.

Because if you're convinced that homosexuality is the issue, you fight a war that cannot be won.

You cannot outlaw homosexuality. You can only try to outlaw sexual behavior you don't like. But Americans have this habit ignoring laws they think are stupid.

I tell people all the time that the people who pay attention to gun laws aren't the ones you should worry about.

The same thing applies here.

The real issue is completely different.

Tax money is going to endorse and encourage one set of behaviors over all others.

That's it.

While the distraction captures your attention, they're picking your pocket to do things for your own good.

Whether you agreed or not.

It's for your own good.

How dare you question!!!

You want to win the battle?

Take away that government support.

Let the free market of ideas work.

If people want to study, fine. But no subsidies. People will have to pay.

And by the way, the same goes for the ideas you agree with.

If people want to study, fine. But no subsidies. People will have to pay.

Yes, there will be ideas taught that you don't like. But those ideas will have no artificial advantage.

The only measure left will be which ideas work in real life.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation

I don't agree with everything here, but you should definately watch.


"You Are Not Alone" by Bill Whittle

This essay isn't mine and I do not have permission to quote it, much less post it in it's entirety.

But you should read the whole thing.


NeoNotes - The real "for their own good"

I'm libertarian. If I had my way, the government would be much smaller and not pushing either a progressive agenda or a conservative one. I'm convinced that a big reason WHY this is happening now is because conservatives built the Big Institutions to keep things working Their Way™ and progressives took them over for the exact same reason.

I don't believe the answer is in who gets to call the shots.

I think the solution is stopping people from meddling with other people's lives so that those other people HAVE to take responsibility for their own choices.

Because that's the real 'for their own good.'

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


Political discussion

I believe that we need to have our thoughts and ideas tested. We need to argue respectfully with those who disagree with us. Sometimes we need to should at them at waggle our fingers under their noses.


The Legacy of Obama comes to Arizona


What else can I say?


Libertarianism for Beginners

John Stossel wrote an excellent review of Seavey's Libertarianism for Beginners.


Scam - not the IRS

Any robo-caller demanding money is almost certainly a scam.


Flag in my yard

The Scouts do it for all the national hollidays.



I was adding commentary to some of my lexicon entries. I thought this one was worth mentioning on both my politics blog and my pagan blog.

Kafkatraps are THE keystone of victimhood politics and most identity politics. Without someone recognizing or assuming blame, kafkatraps cease to work.

Kafkatrapping centers on guilt. Don't accept it. Don't reject it. Act as if the accusation is so silly and undeserved it's not even worth discussing. They will repeat, and you still shouldn't pay any attention to the claims. Go on as if the accuser had said nothing of importance. Indeed, go on as if you are trying to keep them from embarassing themselves further. You're doing them a favor if only they were rational/sober enough to know it.

Kafkatrapping came by way of certain Christian denominations and mala prohibita laws. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Go to the lexicon to read the rest.



You may have noticed that I used one of his essays as one of my Liberty on the web links in the sidebar. Yes, I only put up three liberty links. Two of them are videos. Whittle's was the only essay I used.


NeoNotes — Emotional connections

I'm considerably more "sex positive" than most of the posters here. In my Corporate Clone days, I collected pelts. It was another way of controlling other people. Believe me, I'm an expert when I speak here.

Sex without the emotional connection is masturbation. And just as fulfilling.

I call it the pillow talk problem. Simply put, what do we talk about after f…ing?

The Greeks had words to describe the different dimensions of love. Simple truth. The more of those dimensions you make part of your relationship, the better the sex.

Sex is more than exchanging fluids and viruses and bacteria. Sex is about life. Sex can make your life better. Or it can drain your passion to nearly nothing.

Your choice.

ETA: It's obvious that the better you know the other person, the less likely you are to get infected. I totally agree with conservatives there.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


Bad ideas

As part of recoding my lexicon, I'm including commentary of why I think some things are bad ideas. Here's an excerpt. The dashed border and the red letters show I think it's a bad idea.


A politico-economic system in which most power is held by large corporations, often mistakenly called capitalism. This is the current governing system of most of the world

If your business model depends on government intervention, you'll ignore the "customer" and focus on manipulating and controlling the government. That's how to get a bigger profit under corporatism.

corporate social responsibility

economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations with society has of it's corporations and institutions at any given point in time

As hard as it may be for some to believe, corporations have absolutely zero social responsibility. A corporation is responsible to it's shareholders first and last. The way that a company keeps and makes more customers is by selling what the people want in a way that is equal to or maybe a bit better than the competition. That brings more profit which means the owners are happy. Anything else is literally the price of doing business.

Companies don't care, people should. If you don't like what a company sells or how it does business, go to the competition. Under no circumstances should you get government to make a company do what you want. That leads to corporatism, and that means neither the government nor the company has any reason to listen to the likes of you.

There are three rules that companies should keep in mind. If done right, following these rules can put a company in the top twenty percent.
  • Competition keeps us honest.
  • Always do what you promised.
  • Try to deliver more than you promised.
A company is responsible to it's ownership. Customers are the ones who pay the bills. Sometimes the real customer is the government, see corporatism.

Just some things to think about.

p.s. It looks WAY better on the other site.


Apple patented blocking smartphone cameras

Sometimes the oddest things can have the strangest consequences.


Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia

I do want to draw attention to this quote from Hoff Sommers.
Thou shalt teach both sides of the argument.


Racism or Tea Kettles?

As a free trade supporter, the downside would be the loss of a free trade zone with the rest of Europe, but I am not sure it can be called a "free trade zone" if they are banning toasters.
— Warren Meyer, Was Brexit About Racism or Tea Kettles?

Catastrophe or Opportunity

The sky is not falling, and when the dust settles, Britain's decision may very well prove to be a pivotal event in the reshaping of global relationships and trade that will, in the final analysis, benefit all of us.
— Gary Johnson, You Can Look at Brexit as a ‘Catastrophe’ or an ‘Opportunity’

About that Brexit thing

Looks like they made the right choice. And Cameron resigned.


Rainbow arms

Maybe, just maybe, it's not about making Americans safer.



Without the add-ons that inevitably attach to any political cause, many people seem to be making the same best argument to leave. Natalie Solent at Samizdata put it well.

Because I think it’s vital that you are able to vote out a government.


NeoNotes — Vice

All right, it's going to be one of those discussions, isn't it?

Is a child more damaged by the presence of bars and liquor stores in the neighborhood? Undeniably a major source of domestic violence, right there in front of the children.

Gun stores, selling bullets and actual guns in the neighborhood. How many shootings were there last week? How many more until we wake up to the danger?

And then there's banking. Why, your own Book says that the love of money is the root of all evil. All those banks, offering people cheap credit cards, sub-prime loans on houses, and ATMs on every street corner. Obviously the very foundation of a Materialistic Socieity.

In all my time here, I've never made any secret that my views about nudity and sex obviously do not match the "societal norms."

Nor have I insisted that those norms be changed to accommodate me and my beliefs.

All I have insisted on is that people are free to make their own choices, but that means accepting responsibility for those choices.

When it comes to sex, my first big rule is consenting adults.

I'm willing to accept the age of consent as a working compromise even though I know a child has been exposed to sexuality pretty much since the day they were born. You can't be human and avoid it. We’re wired for it, we long for a simple touch when don't have it.

Now I could point out that that many problems brought about by bootleg liquor were caused not by the liquor but by it being illegal. How it was made, if it would blind you, what had been added to it, these things happened because there's no quality control if it's illegal and doesn't have to maintain a reputation.

Something very similar happens with most illegal drugs today.

What you're objecting to is the exchange of sex for money. Given your beliefs, I can understand that. But why should your beliefs apply to anyone else?

Yes, there are sexual diseases. But if prostitution was legal, sex workers and clients would be screened. Insurance companies would insist on it.

The thing that is missing here is not morality, it's responsibility.

We don't wall off the liquor stores and bars. We tell people drink responsibly. We don't bar people from buying a gun. We tell them to use it responsibly. We don't take credit cards from people before they can use them. We tell them they are responsible for paying the bill.

Vice laws remove people's responsibility. Vice laws tell people that we don't think they can be adults. Vice laws say that no matter what, certain people are never going to be "good enough."

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Ali was cool

I didn't realize until I was much older just how cool Ali was. It takes an amazing man to say no to his country when they demand that he kill.


NeoNotes — Competition and progress

Competition keeps us honest.

There’s another I like to use, but these days I always have to explain it.

Progress never comes from satisfaction.

Not progressivism, but actual progress. It’s all the practical advancements that come from tinkering, tweaking, and testing. It’s all based on the simple idea “I can do better than that!!!” It’s all useless theory unless it’s tested and retested and proves itself.

Not because someone made it law. Not because someone threatened others if they didn’t use it. But because it’s a better idea and people chose it.

Ideas improve things not because it’s “morally superior,” but because using the idea produces better and more widespread results.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


The Peanuts Movie

This one had something different. Something unexpected. Something wonderful.


Public blasphemy

Get that? The science is settled. The dogma is not to be questioned. Thou shalt not dissent!


The system is rigged

The purpose of the party system is to control who gets to run for office and to keep the public out of the process.


Environmentalism vs. the Navajo

The poverty rate in the Navajo Nation exceeds forty percent. Yes, you read that right. 40% poverty rate.

The unemployment rate in the Navajo Nation exceeds fifty percent. Yes, 50% unemployment.

Yes, this is happening in the United States.


Local power

This is the problem with companies that aren't managed locally. By nature large companies shift power and responsibility away from local operations for efficiency. Without drastic measures, no one that the customer sees is likely to control anything. This is why the local chain store manager can't control the store inventory or make special orders. This is why local charities are better off going to the corporate office for donations even if there is a plant just down the street. And this is why no one locally can solve any unusual customer problem.


NeoNotes — Reciprocity

Pardon, but that’s not necessarily true. Aside from the obvious “Might makes right,” it’s also possible to build a moral system based on the Ethic of Reciprocity.


I'd argue that in peacetime, there are very few times that reciprocity doesn't apply, at least in the long term. You want to screw with the people around you, they will remember and be less likely to deal with you in the future. (There was a great Bill Whittle essay on this that I used to point people at, but it's not online anymore).

What is the origin of those rules?

That is a great question. The practical part of me would ask does it matter as long as the rules work?


Not just Christianity.

In our opinion, the greatest failure of many organized religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers like themselves. It is our group's belief that religions should stress that their members also use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, other genders, other cultures, other sexual orientations, other gender identities, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Crimes against humanity require that the victims first be viewed as subhuman and the as not worthy of life. If the Ethic of Reciprocity is applied to all humans, then no person or group of persons can be seen in this way.


The whole point of that quote was that many organized religions use an ethic of reciprocity but do not extend their definition of people to members of other religions. In other words, the "elect" have privileges (and implied Wisdom™) that "mere unbelievers" do not.

Reread the quote.

We have one race and that's human. If it's really about reciprocity, we're obligated to recognize the worth of others.


And if someone doesn't believe in your eternal judge, don't you face the exact same questions?

It's not my place to say if your God exists or if He may judge you or indeed if He cares what color shirt you will wear next Saturday. That's between you and Him.

Likewise, it's not your place to say the same thing about my gods.

Which means the only things we have to build a society and culture on are the things we have in common. If that's not going to be a shared belief in a specific aspect of Divinity, what's left?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or my preferred version "Be excellent to each other. And party on, Dudes!"


I'm asking about how, absent a transcendent signifier, anything means anything.

I can't answer that for you. I don't believe anyone can answer that for another person.

If you believe, there's no doubt that will shape your thoughts and actions. If you believe in a different Divine aspect, that will shape your thoughts and actions differently. If you don't believe, your actions will still be shaped by belief.

It's a question of faith. We may not share faith. Does that mean we can't share a culture or a society?


I was updating one of my blogs and I ran across an entry from this site that I made. I thought it was good so I quoted it on my site a few weeks back. The line also applies here.

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.


I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.


One may also choose to honor it, cherish it, and nourish it.

It's a matter of choice.

So tell me, is morality stronger when one chooses it? Or is it stronger when one holds a gun to another's head and says "Do as I say or else!!!"

Isn't morality really about making a choice?

If it's made under duress, doesn't it cease to be moral?

If morality is really a choice, then people will make choices you do not like. The next question is what do you intend to do about them?


I'm not an atheist.

Again, if it's a choice made under duress, is it really moral?

If morality can only exist by force, what's the point?


I can see your point, if the rules are transcendent, then they are universal.

But if that guy over there doesn't believe the rules are transcendent, then for him they won't be. That's true regardless.

And then you get into the arguments over which particular Deity wrote the rules and what the "civilized people" are going to do with those folks who do not believe.

That's an incredibly dangerous path to take.


One thing I've learned is that when it comes to enforcing morality, it's almost never a god that does it. It's people who claim to to speak for the Divine.

Inevitably, that leads to arguments over which god is in charge. Funny how that leads to political power for a certain priesthood.

Religion is not the reason, it's the justification.


I disagree. I think the core of civilization is cooperation, not force. Positive not punishment.

Although I differ from most libertarians when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, I believe that relying on force alone will create disaster.

Is morality transcendent or man-made? That's ultimately unanswerable on anything except a personal level. Practically, it only matters if I can trust you and you can trust me.


A couple of years ago I asked on this site if someone could be a "good" man if they weren't Christian.

I don't think force is a foundation of civilization.

What do I base trust on? Past behavior if I have a history with you. The chance to make things a little better today if I don't.

It's an act of faith. *grins*

You know, we’ve had this discussion before. Somehow, I don’t think either of us has changed our views since then.


Hah! I found it. I misremembered what I wrote. Perhaps the question bears repeating here.

Is the only source of accepted morality Christian?


I'm talking about honoring, cherishing and nourishing a moral philosophy. There's not much subjective about it.

If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't kill others.

If I don't want to be hurt, I should not hurt others.

If I want nice stuff, I shouldn't take or damage other people's stuff.

The best way I can protect myself is to stand up for others when I can.

This isn't because of some priest hiding behind a sacred text. This is because I live in the World with other people.


I agree with you.

My grandfather's funeral taught me that the measure of a man was how he touched the lives of others.

As a person of faith myself, I believe in the Divine and I do devotions. I believe that reaching beyond ourselves is how we become better and make our world better. It's the Manifestation.

I just don't think that's the only choice.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Environmentalism loses it's wind

The environmental movement is more than climate change. The climate change movement is destroying the environmental movement.


NeoNotes — Earth Day

This was originally published at Technopagan Yearnings last year.


NeoNotes — Undermine your own

Perhaps what frustrates you most is that you can't denounce my faith without undermining your own. At the end of the day, we don't have anything but our faith. Mine is just as valid as yours by every "objective" measure you trot out.

Live and let live. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

The most important person you've never heard of

He's one of those people you should have read about in school. Agricultural scientist, humanitarian, father of the Green Revolution, his work probably fed more people than any other human in history. Despite the good his work has done, to the end of his life he was roundly criticized. It didn't stop him.


"For thee, not for me…or my friends"

It's been obvious from BEFORE the law that Obamacare would have to be "tinkered" with again and again. Usually for no reason except political expediency.


DOJ delays Apple case

I think the FBI was fighting a PR war and it blew up in their face.


Thirteen thousand

So here's a simple question.


Rebellion rumbles

There's only one question left.

If government doesn't trust you, why should you trust government?


NeoNotes — Religion becoming the law of the land

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

One paragraph

People aren't labels and they certainly aren't defined by labels.


NeoNotes — Political committment

I make it a rule to doubt the political commitment of anyone more than three years younger than the voting age.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

NeoNotes — Politics is never about reform

Politics is not about reform.

Politics is about control.

Politics is never about reform, even when the politicos say that is is.

By definition, reform can't come from within. It almost always splits off into a new thing.

At this point, I don't think anyone can stop the collapse. Nor do I think that's bad. There are how many laws on the books? How many regulations in the Federal Register? We've been conditioned to depend on government to help us. Cut spending, but not national defense. Cut spending, but not aid to Israel or Saudi Arabia. Cut spending, but not Social Security. And some banks and unions are Too Big To Fail.

We've been taught that government is supposed to govern and control the other guy.

That's the guy who is the problem.

Not us. Never us, It's not our fault.

As long as the "system" perpetuates that, it should fail. Some of the rot goes back to Reconstruction. As long as people believe that things can be fixed so their lives won't be upended

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


In summary, the older journalists are being laid off and they aren't entitled to run their crusades For Your Own Good under the pretense of being fair and impartial.



Technically this isn't news about this site.


John Oliver speaks on encryption

This is too good to skip.


The FBI demands you sacrifice privacy

Please notice that he didn't talk about rights.


The FBI wants your iPhone

We're at the point where the FBI and the DoJ don't believe the U.S. Constitution applies to their actions anymore.


Climate Pre-Crime

Just remember, it's not illegal to deny climate change. That takes an act of Congress and a Presidential signature.


NeoNotes — Political fringe and crazy ideas

Ah yes, the political fringe and their crazy, insane ideas.

Only problem is, there is more than one.

We could use the recent DOD and U.S. Air Force training materials that call conservative groups extremist. One of the danger signs is supposed to be focusing on individual rights.

How about those bankers in the 1990s who loudly said that housing loans to people who couldn't afford to pay wasn't a good idea?

We could talk about those folks in the 1960s who thought that skin color and religion shouldn't prevent equal rights.

How about those ladies back in the late 19th century who had this radical idea that women should be allowed to vote?

I know! We could talk about all those "racists" who dare criticize any policy that our dear Imperious Leader suggests. After all, he works so hard.

It's a dangerous game, labeling what you don't agree with as lunatic.

Lest we forget, we have Bush the Younger (or Bush League as I call him) to thank for botched nation "rebuilding" and this latest "too big to fail." Nixon was responsible for the first "too big to fail," you may remember. The conservative label has no virtue, it takes people.

The "fringe" has also given us the personal computer, the car, and some talented bands that started in a garage.

Crazy ideas aren't always bad…

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Immigration

Years ago, I was part of a small libertarian group that took a very preliminary look at American immigration policy.

Without a drastic change in the leadership of both the US and Mexico, the most viable solution we could come up with was to annex Mexico. That was still a big longshot.

Since that wasn't exactly a libertarian solution, we agreed to disband.

The accepted capital "L" Libertarian solution is to end the War On Drugs, destroying the cartels and changing Mexico's economy.

I do not think that alone would be enough. Anything we do to change immigration policy has to deal with all the illegals here already. Short of armed troops throwing them back across the border, we're not going to get rid of them. I don't like the idea of amnesty either.


E-Verify, like the income tax before it, coerces employers into becoming unpaid spies for the Feds. I can't support that.

Like many libertarians, I think all government welfare benefits should be abolished. In this case, welfare is a poorly disguised vote buying scam.

I also don't support giving Federal funds to cities. Detroit just went broke, there are dozens of other cities teetering. Should their mismanagement be rewarded? Jerry Brown just invited millions of illegals to California, he's counting on Federal money to bail them out.

And don't get me started on public education.

I don't think the answer is more law. I think it starts with repealing the laws that got us into this mess.


It's makes each employer responsible for investigating each prospective new hire and reporting that to the "proper" authorities.

That has nothing to do with the job and everything to do with law enforcement. In other words, a snitch. Or, more politely, a spy.

What's more, employers have no choice.


Okay, let's deal with the armed troops thing.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a nation where the armed forces conduct door to door searches. Today it may be illegal aliens. Tommorrow it may be two liter soda bottles. Or incandescent light bulbs. Or religious publications.

Most illegals aren't violent. Yes, they are criminals, but we don't treat jaywalkers the same as bank robbers.

The military should not be involved in law enforcement. For a long time that was illegal. Then we started "bending" the rules for the drug war and then we repealed the law.


I did say that ending the war on drugs wouldn't be enough, but I do think it is a good first step.

Pardon me if I don't think your plan is a good one. I rate napalm raids right up there with Canada launching an airstirke on south central L.A. It's an act of war that begs for retaliation. Killing anyone without due process for crime is murder.

ETA: It should be "Killing anyone without due process or in self defense is murder."


I agree that shutting down the welfare state would be a Good Thing™, and not just because of illegal immigration.

If I choose to help somebody, that is charity. If an Authority Figure does it with my money and backed with the force of law, that's extortion.

There is also the small matter of if cities and states are getting lots of Federal monies, those Authority Figures are less likely to dissent.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Smear

Pardon, but why should they feel shame?

Are they not freely consenting adults?

It doesn't look like they are cheating on spouses or significant others. It doesn't look like someone is using theft or fraud.

It's not really all that different from what's been going on for ages.


You're stretching the definition of prostitution.

What next? Will you forbid single teachers from dating?

Do you want ankle monitors so you can make sure they don't stray?

Shall we restrict them to dorms so we can watch them even closer?

Maybe the dorms should have nice strong steel doors and bars on the windows…


So it's okay for the woman to sleep with who she is dating, just not if she accepts payment?

So much for a dinner date.


But how many of the couples from have someone leaving a c-note on the nightstand?

On the other hand, there are plenty of "virtuous and moral" people who do exactly that.

If you really want to tout the virtues of a "public indoctrination system" I won't stop you.

It doesn't have much to do with freedom or liberty though.


"Virtuous and moral" were your terms, not mine. The first thing that popped into my head when I read that was that old footage of Jimmy Swaggert proclaiming "I have sinned against you…"

Oddly enough, the most moral people I know of don't have to brag about it.

You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution. The DOI was intended to show the moral case for revolution, while the Constitution is supposed to be the basis of government.

Neither mentions anything remotely close to a "public indoctrination system." That pretty much HAS to come from a "government lackey" or "central committee." It still has nothing to do with freedom or liberty.


You really like that smear word, don't you?

It's open ended, so you can use it to quash debate whenever you want.

Except you can't.

How are these people perverted again?


Smear words are used to quash dissent. It works, unless someone questions it.

I meant the people in the original article. You know, the ones you called perverted, and then tried to link to sexual practices that you find even more repugnant.

Just so no one would question your original allegation.


Nope, that isn't what I said.

Look again. What I said is that if they have sex after a dinner date, that's prostitution by this definition.


Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?

Personally I think it's immoral to convict an individual when they haven't committed a crime because of how you disapprove of their off-time.

"For the children" justifies some immoral behavior.

If you can't show that all teachers molest their students, or that all schools have conspired to hide that from parents, then maybe you shouldn't make blanket accusations.

That's self-control.


I didn't say "blanket statement," I said blanket accusations.

You've gone from consenting adults to molesting kids.

More directly, I haven't said anything about changing the law.

What I have said is what people do in their off time is nobody else's business. I did throw in some obvious bits: consenting adults, no cheating on significant others, no theft, no fraud.

If this is you taunting, you need some practice.

Would you like some pointers?


Of course sexuality and relationships are important. I never said they weren't.

Again, I stressed:

• Consenting adults

• No cheating on significant others

• No theft

• No fraud

Those are pretty good rules no matter how a relationship starts.

The people using the service were just a lot more upfront than most folks these days.


Of course sexuality and relationships between consenting adults ARE NOT society's business.

Do you get a list of officially sanctioned positions and techniques from the Federal government?

Do you get a list of eligible candidates from your city elders?

Do you file for permission from your state before intercourse?


Please stop trying to put words in my posts that aren't there.

I never said lack of harm. I've also never said that people should escape responsibility for their actions.

Guess what. That's any activity, not just sex. Freedom to choose means responsibility for the results.

And in case you haven't noticed, I abhor the word "pervert." I've seen it destroy innocent lives way too often.

I don't believe you should police people's sex lives. I don't think you should police people's lives, period. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be accountable for what they do, I just think the costs of tyranny far outweigh the illusion of safety.


Well, I'll give you this much, you're persistent.

Look again at the original article that began this thread. It was about people selecting companions and partners in an unorthodox way.

Not illegal, but unusual.

There was nothing except comments from readers like you to link that to pedophilia or homosexuality.

To me, it's immoral and perverse that you've taken it on yourself to pass judgement when there is nothing to show that these people did the things you say that you oppose.

Would you accept them passing judgement on you?

Obviously not, from your response to me. And all I've done is defend their right to make their own choices.


You don't know the relationships are harmful. That's another pretty vague word.

If "dysfunctional" and "parasitic" are your standards, you'll have to tell a lot of Americans they aren't allowed to have relationships anymore. Ah, look at all the lonely people…

And now I'm a "pervert," even though you know next to nothing about me. Are you sure you don't want to take another look at that working definition?

I think that people are accountable to themselves and those whose lives they share.


It's not a valid premise.

It's like asking me what food is kosher to me when I am not Jewish.

I abhor the word. I've seen it abused to many times. I prefer not to use it.

How many times can I say the same thing?


No, I have pointed out that you keep using and changing your definition of a slur word. You still haven't shown how the people in the original article have done anything except use an unusual method to pick a bed partner.

For that you've condemned them.

The really sad thing is that you don't see anything wrong with that.


And there is that smear word again.


For many readers of this site, the working definition seems to be "whatever goes against my stated morality when it is convenient."

This week it's me. In an earlier decade it might have been Italian or Irish immigrants. Or the music of Elvis Presley. Or the writings of Walt Whitman. Or the notion that all men (and women) are created equal.



Except you keep proving my working definition for me.

See, you can tell me what you think the definition is.

Or I could watch and see how you use it. That's why I said working definition.

Please prove me wrong.


I said in an earlier decade, it might have been Italian or Irish immigrants. Or the music of Presley, the writings of Whitman, or the notion that all men are created equal.

I added women in parentheses because I thought the statement should be qualified here.

My point is that every one of those things was considered perverted. You don't even want to know what was written about Irish and Italian immigrants, some of it actually makes the Westboro Baptist Church seem classy.


No, what I did was show what was "perverted" is not necessarily what is "perverted" today.


I've shown that your slur word is just that, a slur word whose meaning changes with time and is routinely applied to anyone you might not agree with.

Frankly, I try not to use that word. Unless there is harm other than some ever-changing moral standard, it's not my business to know what my neighbor does in his house, anymore than it's his business what I think of sushi and motorcycles.


Except your definition keeps expanding.

You don't know the people who the article describes, yet you link them to homosexuals and pedophiles. And then you called me perverted.

I certainly disagree with you, but you would be hard pressed to show anything else.


I'm defending the right of people to make their own choices without society policing them for the "greater good."

If you take a harder look, you'll see that what the women in the article have done isn't all that far removed from what some ladies have done for centuries. It's part of civilization.

It also isn't all that different from what goes on in American society today. The only reason that the article was written was because some of the women were public school teachers.

Which means that you think people should have fewer rights if they have certain jobs.

You should think really hard about that.


Small "l" libertarian, well, yep, that's me. As far as it goes anyway.

Funny though how no one else has pointed out the obvious. If it were any profession besides teaching, there would be no story.

It's nobody else's business what someone does in their off time. You wouldn't stand for it if someone was talking about controlling your behavior "for the children."

That's today's quick definition of liberty, folks. It's not a right unless the other guy has it too.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Taking over the world


That's the point. People can and should make their own choices.

The only point in taking over the world is to make sure that people do make their own choices.


The same could be said of almost any group.

But I'll stick to speaking for myself.

What gives another man authority to rule your choices? His degrees? That he's elected? That he's "smarter" than you? That he can juggle numbers better than an Atlantic City accountant?

What makes you more qualified to decide for your neighbor than he is? Would he agree with you? Or would he want to rule over you?


Fair enough.

It seems to me that you think humans need to be governed. Is this your thinking? Might I ask why?


Well I think that a bottom up approach beats a top down one. But that's probably my bias showing. After all, I am a part time trouble maker and a lowercase "L" libertarian.

Still, if you think humans need to be governed, who do you trust to rule? Would the guy three streets over trust the same people? Would the gal down the block trust the same people?


I just don't agree that the default setting should be "government."

I also think that having government turns problems into Somebody Else's Problem (an idea I stole from the late Douglas Adams). You don't notice it because it's Somebody Else's Problem, even though you and your neighbors could fix it easily without technocrats and politicos telling you what is "right" and "wrong."


I don't want to leave it there. I'm stretched a bit thin right now.

There are assumptions that libertarians make that others do not. Chief among these is the free market. Not the corporatized government-sanitized-for-your-protection thing, but the actual free market. Choosing to make (or not to make) transactions between consenting adults.

Then there's KYFHO, which I consider a major cornerstone. I wrote the FAQ on it. Literally. Check out your favorite search engine. With just KYFHO I'm one of the top five entires. With KYFHO and FAQ, I'm the top choice.


I think you're wrong there.

Libertarianism presumes that people can mostly work out their differences for themselves.

Yep, I'd have to agree that libertarianism is anti-nation.

It is very pro-freedom though. And very individualist.

A nation has no virtues or vices except what it's citizens choose.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — About the guilt

First, not all feminists. And not all lesbians.

Now with that out of the way, these particular females (I will not dignify them as ladies) do have a big problem.

It's all about the guilt. If the guys don't feel guilt, there is no way these females will get their way. I for one am tired of it. I've been lectured to about the need for keeping silent when the RadFems are speaking. I've been lectured for pointing out that environmentalism makes no sense while ecology does. I've been lectured for saying #AllLivesMatter. And I have been lectured to when I refused to change my lifestyle because it is not acceptable to feminism.


I make the same stand against them that I make against some of the conservative Christians. My life is my own. My choices are my own. My responsibility is my own,


Unfortunately, that's not enough for some conservative Christians.

They want to meddle. For the greater good, of course.

And that means taking lives and responsibility away from other people.


If you bother to read my comments, you'll find I don't try to hide what I am saying. After all, I am a pagan libertarian posting openly on a conservative mostly Christian board.

If you had asked me about the "culture wars," I'd tell you that war is the wrong way to think about it. War is backed by force. If you can't convince someone that your way is right without resorting to force, you're doing it wrong.

What you believe isn't important to me. Your freedom to choose what to believe, that is vital. That is what I will defend.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — On Liberty - the ORIGINAL NeoNotes™

…restricted groups…

Curious choice of phrasing there.

Okay, here's the NeoNotes™ version. In three parts.


Part the First — Labels don't define people, labels describe people. Just because one Democrat orthodontist Mets fan beats his wife and kids does't mean that all Democrats do. Or all orthodontists do. Or all Mets fans do.

It means one person does.

Until you can show that ALL individuals within a group are equally guilty of all crimes, then you can't link group membership to the crime.


"The word is not the thing." "The map is not the territory." The person is not the label.

Not all cancer victims smoke. Not all people wearing pants commit armed robbery. Not all American males like football.

You do not control people by slapping a on a label.


Part the Second — No matter how much you disapprove of someone's behavior and personal life, if it's not against the law it's none of your business.

Remember that last bit.

It's none of your business.

Make it your business for whatever reason, and you open yourself up to people poking in yours.


Depends on the behavior.

Molesting kids, that is against the law and I accept that law as a workable compromise.

Laws against what consenting adults do, well, that is bad law. I don't care if it's a home brewery, scrapbooking, or sex, it's none of your business.

See Part the Third.

The law has no virtue because it is law.


Part the Third — There are limited times ANYTHING should be against the law.

If it doesn't threaten another's person or property, then it probably shouldn't be a law.

Just because your religion says it's not right doesn't mean it should be illegal. Unless you want to be controlled by another's religion.

I think we should compromise and at least try to protect children.

Anything else should be hands off.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

This particiual thread inspired the name.


New quotes - updated

So what is it with all these new Quotes & Thinkums entries?

Some of the comments I make on other boards are worth saving. So I'm putting them here.

ETA: I've given those entries their own catagory, NeoNotes.

That's it.

NeoNotes — Divine intervention

Your issue with me isn't about what I say. It's that I don't recognize Christianity as the "obviously superior" choice. It's that I won't give Christianity the hand up you think it deserves. It's that I don't think Christianity is the "universal" choice.

Am I attacking you? No. Am I attacking Christianity? No. Am I suppressing Christianity? No.

If Christianity is what you believe, then it should be able to hold it's own AND MORE against any other set of ideas with no special advantage.

Which means there’s no need to explain human behavior because of Divine intervention or devilish activity.

It’s choice.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Ordinary

Most of the ordinary are already great.

Even their day to day actions produce wonders.

That orange juice in your fridge and in fridges all over the country? Absolutely wonderful and put there by everyday people doing everyday things.

That smartphone you use? We were barely reaching for it twenty-five years ago. Made possible by ordinary people wanting things just a bit better than they were yesterday.

That food bank downtown? It's only there because some folks decided to make things a little easier for their neighbors.

All great things. All wondrous things. All made possible by ordinary people.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — American Legacy

We are a nation of individuals, of individual liberty and responsibilities, of individual choice and individual passion. We're the first nation like that in recorded history, it is our legacy.

Our faiths, like Christianity, are a part of that.

Please think about this. You may believe that your God makes the sun rise, but your faith doesn't control my actions. Likewise, my faith doesn't control you.

We have to find common ground outside religion. Otherwise it's a matter of whose religion is "in charge," and that way will destroy liberty.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — On Progress

Progress never comes from satisfaction.

And I am not talking about progressives.

We adapt, we change, we rise to meet the challenges. Life is a journey, not a destination.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Not the pagan community

I'm not speaking for the pagan community. Much of the justification for "establishing" a Greater Pagan Community® is so that certain individuals can get the adoration and deference they believe they deserve.

I believe in ecology but I'm against environmentalism.

I believe individual freedom and personal responsibility works ever so much better than collectivism.

I think that what Christians call the Golden Rule is one of the most important roots of civilization. But I prefer another version, "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"

Now is that enough of a test, or do I have to give the Super Secret Handshake™ too?

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — On Rape Culture

I'm not familiar with the work, but we've seen these discussions far too often. Take the allegation that the United States is a "rape culture." Or the notion that anyone who says "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" is a racist.

In this specific case, look at the mindsets involved. One wants validation and their demands enshrined in law and regulation. The other wants a better world for them and theirs. Yet both are treated as if the RadFem ideology is dominant.

There are women who consider themselves feminists that think wife and mother is a valid choice and don't want anything to do with the RadFems. But these are not the ladies doing it for attention. They won't be published. They won't be picketing. They won't be giving soundbites for the news or YouTube. That's not how they believe lasting change happens.

Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don't.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — On Christian theocracy

>Anytime someone starts talking about a Christian theocracy, I ask "Which one?"

Besides the obvious differences between Catholics and Protestants, there are differences between the sects. There's no way a Baptist is going to take religious marching orders from a Mormon. The Methodists won't accept directions from the Christian Scientists.

This predates the country. Back in the colonial days, no one wanted a church in one colony dictating religious practices in another. This is partially why there was no national church defined in the Constitution and why the only mention of any god in that document was the date.

The best way to make sure that you're allowed to practice your religion in peace is to make sure EVERYONE has that same right.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Sex Speculation

There I admit we get into some speculation. We can't isolate the culture from the genetics. Not to mention that Really Big Assumption that you are either straight OR gay forever and ever, amen.

We can't say how much a person's sexual orientation depends on their conditioning, religious beliefs, cultural standards, rebellion, stress, pain, or pleasure. These factors can't be eliminated.

Basically all we have to work with is observations and we don't know how much is because of the biology and how much is because of the mind. That means in turn that any discussion of sex is going to bog down really quickly in ideas that can't be quantified.

Thank the gods the same can't be said for the act!

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Trends

Perhaps we could just say stuff happens and individuals need to be held responsible.

The trends argument is the same justification that the RadFems use against males in general. You can pick and choose bad examples and ignore the good examples. That way, you never need to talk about individuals, it's about trends and statistics and who is the greater "danger to the community."

Why is it better when conservatives use that justification against whatever Label X is this week?

Until and unless you can show that all of Label X engages in Action Y AND no one who is Not Label X engages in Action Y, the argument falls down. Which means maybe, just maybe we should look at something other than the label.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes — Dangerous beast

Perhaps the biggest difference between libertarians and conservatives/progressives is that conservatives and progressives view government as a Way To Get Things Done.

Libertarians see government as an extremely dangerous beast that if kept at all, must be severely hobbled and and three-quarters starved.

For the safety of the community.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


Twitterfied - updated

But here’s the thing. They make no secret of their opinion. If they think I am wrong, they tell me and they tell me why.


NeoNotes — No real difference

Actually there is very little difference between the "leaders" of either party. They don't object to stuff being done, they object to the other "guy" doing it and getting the credit.

The problem isn't the Republicans or Democrats, it is the state. It's going to continue until enough people realize that the self-appointed elites control the candidate selection and mostly control the agenda.

If you're supporting increased taxes to get money or benefits, you're supporting theft plain and simple. Politicos will spend all the money they can grab and then some. It won't be on the things you think you "deserve."

Then there is the numbers game.

The "rich" don't make enough money. Even if you seized every dollar the "rich" made, it wouldn't pay for everything. You have to go deep into the "middle class," well beyond the upper, beyond the middle, and well into the lower "middle class." And it's still not enough.

That brings us to the biggest second order function in a "progressive society." If people can't keep what they earn, why should they work harder to earn more?

Finally, (and this is the Really Important Bit™). Government is not your friend.

The purpose of government is not to help "the poor, the weak, and the minority."

It is to perpetuate and expand power at the point of a gun.

It won't help to get the "right people" elected, because they won't stay elected.

Instead, power backed by force will stay with unelected technocrats who are convinced that they know what is "for your own good" no matter what you say and do.

As long as I am making a
morning rant, I might as well use it twice.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


Apple stands for rights

The FBI won’t stop at one iPhone.

The FedGovs won’t stop at ten thousand smart phones.


Cruz goes evangelical

Why does Cruz assume that the only worthy values are Christian ones?


Not all feminists…

Certainly not all women are like that. What we have is a very small group that wants political power and public validation in the worst way. Yes, it’s another case of Those Who Want To Be Noticed.


Women in combat



Anyway, it’s looking more and more like the Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will set aside a certain number of nominations for skin color.


Tain't Mine

This is from an email exchange I had recently.


Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, the most important American holiday that you’ve never heard of.

Think about it. Without the Bill of Rights, without the fundamental protection of individual liberty, the Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.


This looks promising

I stumbled across a very interesting looking website.

No Compulsion. Where Islamic Tyranny Meets Liberty.


Remembering the San Bernardino Victims

I hope their families find peace.


Let them be forgotten

One thing we know is that the mass killers count on their names becoming infamous to strike fear into people's hearts, even if they weren't involved in the shootings. The shooters want to live in infamy.

So why don't we take that away from them? Forever? Let them be remembered as cowards who only dared attack unarmed victims.


The money thing

It’s the only campaign finance scheme that reduces the size of government, returns power to the voters, and keeps local money only in politics


Who is racist now?

I did not humble myself and acknowledge the sins of my skin color.


Prince Charles Wrong on Syria

I realize the man is trying desperately to make his mark.


Cruz becomes

In American politics, one of two things usually happen to politicos who act against the party leadership like Cruz has.


What strategy?

No, I don’t think it’s the best solution.


So Why Not Impeach?

No, I am not exagerating.

Although the Imperious Leader does.

When he isn’t lying.


Victimhood drek

She didn’t do it by being a victim.

She did it by trying again and again until it worked.


Holding up prices

This does show a lack of competition.


She can speak for herself

We need to test our ideas again and again.


This is why John Kerry won't call it a treaty

John Kerry and the State Department do a semantic shell game to avoid the law.


Another place I talk Christianity

I wouldn’t want people to think I was hiding something.



Ever wonder why the Imperious Leader doesn’t ask before he commits the country?


Moore stuff

The green movement and particularly the climate change crowd can’t stand dissent.



Mind you I still wasn’t getting the service I paid for, but it was so much better than what I’ve had for the last few months. I almost caught myself sending them a thank-you.


Obama the racist

The Imperious Leader and the Federal government has already decided that no matter what, certain “races” can’t succeed without help from The Man.


Introducing the Love Gov

The Federal Government as an abusive boyfriend. Be sure to share with your friends.


Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I am absolutely certain that abortion should not be funded by taxpayers. Nor should organizations or companies providing abortions. Nor should companies that provide birth control.