Here's Comes Big Brother... Look Out!

A fundamental part of my belief system is this... other people are NOT your property. They own their own lives, minds and bodies. They own their labor and the fruits of that labor - whether money, or what the money is exchanged for, or what they make, create or inherit. And they have the freedom to choose to VOLUNTARILY associate and interact with any other person, or group.

Obviously, such a stance is diametrically opposed to the idea of a government. For government is about coercion - forced interaction whether you like it or not, theft of the fruits of my labor, and ongoing taxes on my labor. Effectively reducing me to nothing more than a serf from the middle ages. They just don't call it that.

Anyway. This new threat is the epitome of big brother owning the citizens...

Politicians from the "conservative" National Party in Australia want the federal govt to investigate the idea of giving babies an "anti junkie" vaccination. With such a vaccination being designed to make children immune to becoming smokers or drug users. Effectively removing the freedom of choice a human being has to partake of a certain substance or not.

The danger of this bullshit idea is that it is "for the children." But if it goes through, where do we draw the line? Why not a vaccination to stop people becoming couch potatoes? How about a vaccination to stop people eating whatever we deem not appropriate for them? How about a vaccination to make people calm docile sheep - prevention of behavior that might disrupt a classroom of "eager to learn" children?

See where this can lead, once we open the door to any kind of vaccination that removes our freedom of choice.

Let's not teach our children to be strong-willed and what is good and not good for them, and leave them to decide. No. Let's just put another chemical into them at the expense of the citizens, while making the pharmaceutical companies richer.

It is an abomination and a disgrace. And what makes it worse is... politicians in Britain are also considering such a vaccine!?!?!?!

I don't care if drug addiction is estimated to cost the Government $6 billion a year (Which govt? And who is doing this estimate anyway? Also, it's not the govt it costs but the tax payer as the govt spends collected money giving shots to the junkies to keep them in the habit - if THAT was stopped then it wouldn't cost the tax payers anything). Vaccinating babies to remove their freedom of choice is a violation of the highest order. Period. And it is an outrage.

If I would not be allowed to come and jab you with something I deem ok for you, and do it against your will, then the govt has no right to do it either.

Again I am reminded of the words of Kurt Russell (a Libertarian) as the character Snake Plissken in Escape from L.A. When at the end of the movie he asks for a smoke and is told "The United States is a no-smoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no women unless you're married, no guns, no foul language, no red meat."

And Snake replies... "Yeah. Land of the free."

Your Neighbor Is A Govt Spy

A never-ending bogeyman. That's what this "War on Terror" is. And the Australian govt, amongst others, is using this perpetual war to encourage its citizens to spy on each other.

I say this war is perpetual because there is no clearly defined enemy. It is a war against a tactic... a strategy... a method... and not any particular person or group in particular. If it was against a clearly defined enemy, then we would be able to gauge its progress. We would know if we are winning or not. But because it is a war against a method, us citizens have no quantifiable way to know if we are winning or not.

If this "war" was serious, it would be a war against terrorists. For then we define what is and isn't a terrorist. We are able to identify terrorist groups. And can start to formulate a plan to prevent them from killing us.

But as it is, there is no clearly defined target. The target becomes whatever the govt claims is "part of" the war on terror. And that can be anything - from infringing upon our property rights at airports, indiscriminate surveillance, searches conducted without warrants, unrestricted phone taps, and so on. Because it can all be claimed to be "part of" the war on terror. And the podies just lap it up.

If the enemy was clearly defined as I said, then the public would jump up and down - and rightfully so - in objection that tapping their phones without limit, or free range searches without warrant, have anything to do with catching the clearly defined enemy. Makes sense, right?

I mean, you would have every right to object at being searched at an airport. For you would not match the clearly defined enemy, would you?

This is why I have mentioned that it is dangerous to allow property rights infringement on such a wholesale scale - or any scale. Because we WILL suffer the laws of unintended consequences as mindless bureaucrats carry out "their orders" forgoing all ability to think for themselves.

Anyway. Australia is urging its citizens to spy on each other and then tell the police about it. Every week in my local paper there is a one fifth page ad with two blocks of text. The first block is like so...

HELP PROTECT AUSTRALIA
FROM TERRORISM
Small pieces of information from members
of the public can help keep Australia
safe from terrorism. Police and security
agencies are working hard but you
could help them complete the picture.

If you see anything suspicious call
the 24-hour National Security Hotline
on 1800-555-555. Our trained operators
take every call seriously and you can
remain anonymous.

Remember, every piece of information helps.

And this is followed up with another block of text next to it. That block of text is as follows...

Some Things To Look Out For
Terrorists rely on surprise, so there's no
definitive list, however local and overseas
experience has given us some possible warning
signs to look out for. Examples include:

*Unusual surveillance, videotaping or photography of
official buildings, energy installations and important sites

* Vehicles parked near significant buildings or in busy
public areas for long periods of time

* Packages or bags abandoned in public areas such as
malls, buildings or train stations

* Suspicious purchases or possession of large quantities
of fertilizer, chemicals or explosives

* Unusual uses of accommodation such as garages
being used at odd times of the day or night

And it is this list I will comment on...

First, the first bullet point: "Unusual surveillance, videotaping or photography of official buildings, energy installations and important sites". The govt is asking US to know what "unusual" means as opposed to a tourist video tapping a building or taking a photo. The govt is asking us to know what an "important site" is.

Second, the second bullet point: "Vehicles parked near significant buildings or in busy public areas for long periods of time". Again, we are magically supposed to know what a "significant building" is. And how are we to interpret what a "long period of time" is when it comes to public areas? Those areas have 2 hours parking sometimes. And many people overstay and get fined - which then allows them to stay as long as they want because you only get fined once a day.

Next we have "Packages or bags abandoned in public areas such as malls, buildings or train stations." How are we supposed to know a bag has been abandoned as opposed to accidentally left behind, left while just going back to the car, or left while going to the toilet? How do we know it is even left at all and that the bag's owner isn't really just a few feet away looking at goods in a store window?

We have all accidentally left items behind. Remembered, then rushed back only to find our bag still sitting there. And to expect us to make these kinds of judgments in areas notorious for bags and packages all over the place, is really stretching it. Not to mention that this piece of advice cannot stop someone carrying a bomb who wants to blow themselves up.

Next is "Suspicious purchases or possession of large quantities of fertilizer, chemicals or explosives". How do we know if someone has even bought these items, let alone that their purchase is suspicious? And what constitutes a large quantity? A 25kg bag which is standard at the garden store? A couple of bags bought which is also standard?

And last we have "Unusual uses of accommodation such as garages being used at odd times of the day or night". What is an "unusual use" of accommodation? What are considered "odd times" of the day or night? What time during the day is odd? What time during the night is odd?

Apart from the stupidity of expecting us citizens to know what a "significant" building is, what "unusual" surveillance or uses are, and what an "odd" time of the day - or night - is, and then expecting us all to NOT mind our own business and to report our neighbors to the authorities, the govt is publishing this list for everyone to see - including the terrorists!!!

So now all a terrorist has to do is make sure they do not use their garage at an odd time during the day, or buy a bag of fertilizer in a suspicious way, or take photos of significant buildings in a way that looks unusual. Or do anything on the list that the govt publishes every week in the newspaper. And no-one will notice them.

Surely, the govt knows this. So why continue pushing this "please spy on your neighbor" thing. Could it be to create a situation where the citizens distrust each other - as they did in George Orwell's 1984?

The similarities with that book are kind of scary. The perpetual war, the "be on the look out for dangers within", the main bad guy who would be shown on the TV during the 2 minute hates, and so on.

And notice how similar it is to the "reds under the bed" era which flourished back in the 1950's. When citizens were encouraged to keep an eye out for anything "suspicious" and report it to the authorities. Encouraged to spy on their neighbors, as it were, because they could be the enemy.

With the only difference being that back then it was Communism we had to be on the lookout for. But today it is Terrorism. It's like it's the same old ploys being used by the govt to gain more control of us, just the reason behind the method has changed. With, I expect, the same results... totally ineffective in its supposed objective. But the unintended consequences will sure have an effect.

If the govt's police force at all levels (State and Federal) is only able to respond to crimes AFTER they have been committed and is incapable of preventing them from happening, why does anyone think it will be any different by calling it a War on Terror?

And if the terrorists hate us so much already, how come they haven't committed a terrorist act on our soil? Could it be the existing security measures are adequate?

Detractors of my words will say, "But don't you want to prevent an attack?" To which I reply, "Yes. But there is no evidence that taking away my freedoms will prevent anything."

It's the same kind of twisted argument the anti-gunners would use... don't you want to prevent a child from being shot?

Sure I do. But taking away MY guns ain't gonna make that happen. And is not the point of the argument. Likewise, taking away my freedoms and infringing upon my property rights, is NOT going to prevent a single terrorist attack one iota. And printing information about what to look out for, so the terrorists can make sure they don't do that kind of activity, is counter productive and only helps them avoid detection.

It would have to be a pretty dumb terrorist to act and do things that are on the "list of things to look out for" that has been repeatedly published. The terrorists have the patience of Job. If one avenue of attack is deprived they will simply venture down another. Can't use planes anymore? Fine, they'll do something else - whatever that is. And if they do, the govt will respond and change the rules for the particular thing. If it's backpacks and a train (like in Spain) then those things will be banned from trains. It will be a never ending series of greater and greater infringements upon our property rights. Goodbye freedom (what little we currently have) and hello 1984 - all in the name of part of the war on terror.

Want to enter the US? Be prepared to have your mugshot and fingerprints taken. Something normally reserved for criminals. How this will prevent any terrorist getting into the country is not revealed. We are just told it will only add 15 seconds to entering the country. All the while, the INS reports millions of illegals getting into the country from Mexico. And once again we have a "law" that only hinders the honest people.

National ID cards; restricted travel; crazy bank monitoring; etc. Won't stop a single terrorist attack. The govt knows it. But can't admit it. Otherwise it would be admitting to its fallibility. Like Yoda said to Mace Windu, if we reveal our weakness, multiply our enemies will. So the govt has to put up a front that makes the people think it can prevent such attacks. Otherwise, people might see the folly and powerlessness of govt. Because, as Winston Smith said in George Orwell's 1984, the power lies with the proles. It's just that our govt wants them to spy on each other. Make them distrust their fellow citizen and they are easier to control.

From The "Only In America" Files

If you go to certain places on the planet, you see nudity. We are all born nude. Many cultures see people walk around nude, or nearly nude, as an everyday thing. They don't seem to be "disturbed" by it. And I really do not see the problem with it, specially when it is done in private between consenting adults. Which is to say, I like to walk around without having nudity shoved in my face - but - if you want to get nude behind closed doors somewhere, even if someone sees you nude who is also behind those doors, then go right ahead, as far as I am concerned.

Unfortunately, Big Brother knows better. He knows that seeing a naked woman behind closed doors is not good for me. And so he has banned it. At least, that's what the Big Brother who controls the city of Boise in Idaho figures.

You see, Boise's Big Brother banned total nudity in publicly accessible places - UNLESS - it has "serious artistic merit."

Effectively, what this did was shut down every strip club within the city.

See how clever the Big Brother bastards are? They don't ban strip clubs... they ban what goes on inside of them... nudity.

Ahhh... but they have been outsmarted. For you see, there is one strip club that charges customers $15 for a sketch pad, pencil and a chance to see a naked dancer. And they call it their "Art Club Night."

Each "Art Club Night" draws a full house and, more importantly, NO police citations for breaking the law.

It won't be long before other strip clubs cotton on to the idea and start having their own "Art Nights". Then what will Big Brother do? He can't ban drawing otherwise art at school and college will be gone.

If the "Art Nights" had not begun, I would have said that Black Market Stripping would have taken off. Where people would have to pay to become members of private clubs - maybe even one on one stuff with a "protector" hiding in the wings (another room) while the stripper does her thing in the lounge-room of whatever dwelling she rented for the purpose.

Obviously, stopping people from wanting to look at a naked body, is not going to happen. Stopping people from charging others to see a naked body, isn't going to happen. Nor stopping people from taking off their clothes for money. As such... and because Big Brother knows this... this is just another element of control and revenue raising and govt growth.

We tell people what they can and cannot do (control), we fine them when they do what we know they will (revenue raise) and we need more govt employees to enforce the new rules (govt growth). And when we catch them breaking the new silly law we made, we can then claim how effective our crime fighting is, or use it to justify even more police be employed.

In this case, it looks like Big Brother has been shown up to be the useless institution is really is. Always trying to protect us from our selves and justifying everything as being done "for the children."

What two people mutually and voluntarily agree to do, is none of anyone's business. If that includes one person paying another person so they can see some skin, then so be it.

What's next from Boise's Big Brother? Skirts of a certain length? Blouses with full length arms? No shoulder to be seen anywhere because it hints at nudity? Hey, if they can ban someone from being nude behind closed doors, and that self-created law can be gotten around by calling it "Art Night" and handing out sketch pads and pencils, then anything we think is ridiculous is possible. Just another case of "Only in America". But soon to be coming to a city near you.

Evolution Due To Meat, It Is Claimed

Before getting into this latest claim, you need to know two important things...

Important Thing # 1: I do not eat meat. Not to "save the animals" or any such. I avoid it for my own health reasons - artificial hormones, pesticides, bacteria, etc.

Important Thing # 2: I do not believe in evolution as touted - nor do I believe in the "creationist" angle. And I'll cover this further.

Knowing my take on those two things is important as it relates to this next bit. So you can make an informed decision about my conclusions, or motivations behind my conclusions.

Anyway. Craig Stanford, an anthropologist, reckons that because chimpanzees eat meat they have an advanced social structure. And that meat eating helped chimps and humans evolve.

Well. This is another example of deductive logic instead of inductive logic.

Which is, seeing two things in common and concluding that one thing leads to the other. In this case, chimps sometimes eat meat, and so do humans. As both species have advanced social structures it must be due to eating meat.

A similar but different conclusion can be drawn... having an advanced social structure enables chimps and humans to catch animals and eat them.

See the difference. The professor says eating meat leads to an advanced social structure. I say, an advanced social structure enables both species to eat meat.

He says: meat eating = advanced social structure.

I say: Advanced social structure = ability to catch animals to eat them.

The reason I take my point is that we are effectively weaponless. We are too slow to catch prey in a race. We are too weak to bring any kind of animal down, if we do manage to catch it. And we have no natural body weapons to inflict damage on animals we catch - no claws, fangs or horns. Our ONLY weapon is a brain. And our brain enables us to have an advanced social structure. And thus organize and co-ordinate the capture of an animal for meat. So we HAD to have the advanced social structure first.

The other point the professor fails to acknowledge is that physiologically speaking, we are a closer match to gorillas than chimps! Meaning, we are designed to eat a diet that resembles what a gorilla eats. And that doesn't really include meat.

The "meat creates advanced social structure" theory, also doesn't apply across the board. Panthers, cougars, leopards, and cheaters, are all lone animals. Yet they all eat meat. So eating meat hasn't enabled them to have an advanced social structure. So obviously the theory doesn't hold up under even the most cursory glance. Let alone an indepth investigation.

Now to the professor's "evolution" claim...

I am getting fed up with scientists claiming we evolved from some kind of primate a long time ago. In fact, I am fed up with any claim of anything evolving into anything else.

The way they talk about it is as if the animal decided to evolve. Like, the lions needed a weapon to be able to bring down animals by themselves, and so evolved long claws. As if the lion awoke one morning and decided it needed claws and just willed them into being - and that somehow imprinted on the sperm and eggs produced so that when offspring were born they were born with claws.

It's all bollocks. I am yet to know of any evidence of any animal evolving from something else into what we see today.

To accept the evolution theory as it is, I would expect to see a range of animals with the better suited one surviving. Like maybe seeing a range of giraffes with different length necks. But that doesn't happen in the fossil record at all. It shows a time where there are no giraffes and then, suddenly, there are giraffes. And they are exactly as we see them today.

This means I am expected to believe, this animal "evolved" from something as yet unseen, and then remained unchanged for a million years or so. And this pattern - suddenly appears and then remains totally unchanged to this day - is repeated for all animals, including us!

In short, there is NO evidence that anything evolved into anything else. Animals just appear in the fossil record and remain unchanged until they disappear, or to this day - for those species still alive. Don't worry about our missing link, no animal has a missing link!

This isn't to say that animals don't share similar characteristics and can maybe be classified into groups. But just because some animals share certain traits doesn't mean they all evolved from the same single source and then mutated - miraculously gaining or dropping chromosomes or DNA as the case may be - so much so that they can no longer interbreed.

Does this mean I believe in creation?

Nope. I don't believe in that either.

I am happy to admit, I do not know for sure where we, or any animal on this planet, comes from. And just because I do not know, doesn't mean I HAVE to either believe evolution or creation. I am quite satisfied I do not know for certain. For all I know, maybe some lifeforms from outer space terraformed the earth and planted the animals here, like a large intergalactic zoo, or breeding pen. (Hey, you can't prove this right or wrong, right?) And after each mass extinction, they restocked the planet with different lifeforms more suited to the conditions of the time. (A theory which fits the available fossil record. And which cannot be disproved.)

Anyway. Seeing as "evolution" is a questionable theory at best, and that the "meat eating creates advanced social structure" theory is repudiated all throughout nature, me thinks this so-called anthropologist needs to go back to the drawing board before trying to make a name for himself.

How Does Your Sex Life Compare To Others?

The podies are obsessed with sex and whether they are getting enough. Single guys envy those who are married cause they think it means "sex on tap". Married guys envy single guys cause they think it means going to nightclubs, picking up a girl, and having sex - repeated each weekend.

Single guys who aren't getting any, or much, think their "mates" are getting heaps. Married guys think other married guys are getting more than they are.

And girls are made to feel like there is something wrong with them if they aren't horny 24/7. Magazine articles claim to reveal "how to please your man" and other bullshit. As if to imply, they aren't pleasing their man now and won't be able to unless they do what the article says.

Besides articles and magazines catering to this market, there are regular "surveys" to help make everyone feel like they aren't getting enough. And ads promising to solve your erection disfunction through hypnosis, injections, or popping a little pill. And women too are being led to believe they need shots of testosterone to help bring their libido to "normal."

But what exactly is "normal"?

Is it what the medical profession says? In which case, you are accepting someone else's opinion.

Is it what friends reckon? In which case, you are accepting someone else's opinion, who has a motive for making out like they are some kind of sex expert so they can try to put one over on you.

Is it what some sex expert says? In which case, you are accepting someone else's opinion.

Is it what some article in a magazine says? In which case, you are accepting someone else's (a journalists) opinion?

Or is normal actually "normal for the couple"? Which may mean three times a week, once a week, once every two weeks, once a month, or any other frequency. Depending upon what the couple voluntarily and mutually agree upon without pressure from outside interference.

Physiologically speaking, a man is ready to go all the time, because he is fertile all the time. Whereas, a woman is only fertile for a brief period of time once a month, so is likely only to be "in the mood" for a brief period of time once a month.

To say that a woman who only wants sex once a month has a low libido, is a misnomer. Because it is only the OPINION of someone else - and that someone else is most probably a leftist journalist or researcher, as the left seems pre-occupied with people having sex all the time.

And it is even more of a misnomer when so-called researches claim this "low libido" (whatever they mean by that) is a "problem" that needs fixing with some drug or another. Specially when they then claim that a majority have this problem. (Hasn't anyone realized, if a majority of women feel a certain way about sex, maybe THAT is the norm and not what the minority feel, assuming the minority are honest in how they feel about sex and aren't just pretending to want it all the time as the magazines claim they should.)

But women aren't the only ones targeted by drug companies. Men have been bombarded with Viagra. The little pill to help a man get an erection.

Hey. It's a free market. If men want to use a drug to get it up, then so be it. But I draw the line when such a drug is to be made available through medicare. Because then *I* am subsidizing someone else's sex life. And screw that.

If Viagra can be obtained from medicare, why not funding for going to a strip club or dominatrix? Or porn DVD rental/purchase? After all, if it helps me "get it up" (just like Viagra does), then it serves the same function as Viagra and should thus be included, right?

Not getting an erection can be caused by so many things it is not funny. Most of them self-inflicted - too much booze, coffee, work, etc. The person's health is not at risk because they aren't having sex. So Viagra has no business being subsidized by the govt. Simple.

Liars Can Rot

In a previous entry called Liars At The Door/Phone I mentioned my disdain for people who lie. Consider this entry a continuation with another example...

Joe Sugarman, the man behind Blue Blockers sunglasses and internationally known direct marketer, does not like liars much either. As he expressed so eloquently in his first book "Success Forces."

In that book his logic is, "If you will lie to me about something small, what else are you lying to me about?" And there is just no real way to know. Hence, any lie you catch means you cannot trust anything that person says, ever again. And he chooses NOT to do business with them.

This is an approach I fully agree with. If a person is willing to lie about something, and you bust them in some way, what else are they lying about, and how can you know anything they say is true?

Take this classic example. A guy needs some work done so calls my business. The work is done and we go our individual ways, until a week later when he calls again. He arranges a time to get more work done and that is that.

The day before the work is due to be done he calls me and changes the day to a different day and a little later in the day. All seems fine, right?

When I get there, he is not there and he doesn't answer his cell phone. But I am early so begin getting things ready for the work to go ahead, figuring he'll be there as promised. While chatting to the woman whose house my client shares, she tells me he told her I couldn't come on the other day because my vehicle had broken down (lie # 1). He tells her I can't come during any weekday morning because I work (lie # 2). That I can only come on the weekdays in the afternoon (lie # 3). Or that I can only come on weekends (lie # 4).

After 20 minutes he is still not there and so I leave. Never to return either, seeing the man is not only a liar, but is telling lies about me!!!

Years ago I did some work for a guy's business. He'd needed some help and called me.

Now the work he needed done was ongoing. So I was generating business for my business without needing to market. And this is an ideal situation because reduced costs mean more money stays in your pocket.

Anyway. Within the first hour of helping him, a call comes through on my cell phone, for him! It's his mom (who was doubling as his answering service). Passing on a message she had received over the landline. So I hand the phone to him. When he finishes the call and gives it back he says, "I don't take my cell phone on jobs anymore because clients started complaining about it ringing all the time."

I thought this was odd. But hey, if you are in a client's home/business and meeting with them, it is rude to constantly interrupt the meeting to "take a call". So I could see the merit in that.

Over the course of the following month, some of the things I heard him tell clients were quite out there. But as I never knew different... as I never knew his side... I couldn't say he was lying. Until we went to one client.

This client wanted all people entering their premises to have a police clearance - which simply means a piece of paper from the police saying you are not a convicted criminal, and which can be had for $30 or so. I had one but he had never asked to see it or even asked if I had one. And as we entered he told them I was cleared.

Ah Ha! A bold faced lie told right in front of me. He didn't know if I did or didn't have this clearance. And here he was telling them I had one.

I subsequently found out, he didn't have a cell phone because it had been cut off due to not paying his bill. And the business phone was in his mother's name because the phone company refused to let him have a phone of any kind. Which means, he told me a lie on the very first day.

That was the end of that. I won't work or have anything to do with liars. And told him not to call me for anymore "work".

And then there is the other guy, whose name is John. I was doing some work for him and he is telling me all kinds of hardluck stuff. Then during the course he gives me three different stories about WHO has the money to pay for the work... and tells them to me as if he hadn't told me the other story. Needless to say, his life wasn't going so well.

Or how about the guy who was selling his business and we were considering buying it. Tells me his wife can't be at the meeting because she is in New Zealand due to a death in the family. Then ten or fifteen minutes later he tells us his wife can't be there because she is 50 miles away in another city buying stock. If he is lying about his wife's location (another city or another country), what else about the business is he lying about? We didn't buy.

The interesting thing about liars is, they tend not to be successful. Sometimes all areas of their life are down the crapper. Sometimes they may look successful but the inner side, the emotional side and the relationship side are all crap.

But when you look at people in good solid relationships and with good solid businesses, you find honest people. So it seems the old cliche' "cheaters never prosper" has some truth to it after all.