Choose, Live Free Or Die!


Web released to  on 6/15/2011

Blog and announced to

.HTML Hit Counters

54sitaThe history of the world is recorded in numerous books and monuments intermixed with imaginative stories. 

As observed from history our human condition is in a hopeless state of crisis that has been that way since Adam and Eve stated a war of good vs evil. 

This release is an update 10 years after my personal spiritual awakening led to a reading quest that culminated with the Bible.  What Jesus said in the book of Matthew restored hope that would otherwise be lost to the widespread common evil of life (EOL) or End Of Life.  

Many others such as Pascal, Einstein,  John Lennon, Starhawk, and Ayn Rand have contributed great wisdom which I hope to apply and effectively mix for the benefits of our common interests in the USA while examining trends and freedoms of the people who live here with me.


livefreeRelease Note (1999)

Thanks to my family, friends, employer, co-workers, and on-line forums for encouragement in providing my thoughts on a wide range of subjects.  Many of the perspectives I offer have been researched previously for this work and as so much of it has become reference material on line lately, it seems now due-time to publish to a simple web-page. Sorry no book-deal or bin number and no patience waiting for publishers… also not 100% polished (comments to – or perhaps a forum somewhere someday).


Release Note (1999) 1

Preface. 1

Introduction. 2

Relating the past 3

Individual Freedom... 3

A new era in common sense. 6

Methods. 7

FEAR - The old control 7

Negative Tactics. 8

Love and Kids - a new approach. 8

Good Tactics. 9

Improving Social Services. 9

Changing Demographics - Industries/Careers. 12

Entitlements and Age. 12

The Information Revolution. 14

Sudden Changes. 14

The War On Drugs. 14

DARE.. 16

The Establishment 16

Doctors. 17

Cops. 17

Vested Interests. 18

Major Governmental Issues. 19

Crime And Punishment 19

Oligarchy - Fair Trial 20

Unfair Prosecution. 20

Jail 21

Guns. 22

Speech. 23

Environmental Preservation. 27

Taxes. 29

Foreign Relations. 29

Major Social Issues. 31

Minorities. 31

Family. 34

Health Technology. 36

Auto Laws. 38

The End Of The World. 41

The "Son of Man". 41

Conclusion. 44

Freedom, oh freedom, freedom, oh freedom.. 45

Freedom, oh freedom, Live Free Or Die. 45





Freedom is bigger than government, and even bigger than life.  Some of our freedoms have been paid for in blood and established in eternity.  Others are free by grace but encourage growth.  Still more can be earned.  Therefore, the love of freedom brings eternal vigilance, awareness, wisdom, and ultimately appreciation of God, Jesus Christ, and phrases similar to the title of this and the previous book.

I want to thank the readers of “Live Free or Die We Must Choose” for their purchase, support, and especially those who shared their appreciation was so high they read it multiple times.  I was surprised by that since it was never published beyond a local copy center’s reproduction with a stapled binding (about 500 copies printed).

Freedom is bigger than government, and even bigger than life.  Some of our freedoms have been paid for in blood and established in eternity.  Others are free by grace but encourage growth.  Still more can be earned.  Therefore, the love of freedom brings eternal vigilance, awareness, wisdom, and ultimately appreciation of God, Jesus Christ, and phrases similar to the title of this and the previous book.

Spiritually I will build upon a mix of Math (1st), Christian, Astrology, Wicca, Crowley, Buddhist, Muslim, Tao, and other past things I’ve read for a common set of values and references (Christian-oriented-agnostic). I’m a sinner too so if I offend you… sorry that is not my 1st intent.  Rather the first and foremost intent is to find truth.  Truth is worth more than me and all of us.  Why?  That brings us from learning to count read, write, think, eat, feel, etc… to math at the 9th grade level and “Pascal’s Wager[i].  

My 9th grade math teacher Mr V, offered the algebra to evaluate a lottery ticket’s price vs value. 

Ticket Value = size of the jackpot * the probability of winning. 

Then he said “if the price is faith is discrete yet the jackpot is eternal life and thus infinite, isn’t also the value of the ticket infinite?” as he wrote:

Ticket Value = (infinity) * (finite value > 0) = infinity

Thanks Mr V (also a great soccer coach)!  This wager motivates the search for truth being worth more than your life if that truth also includes a chance at a very valuable infinite after-life.  Even if that possibility is slim the infinite value multiplied by any assessment compares to more money than exists in the world.  While this may be compared to the many virgins reward idea it’s completely secular and is not held in the possession of any other doctrine or tradition.  That’s good because the things we can readily agree upon are important for finding our balance. 

This time I’m adding a little more perspective with some of what I’ve learned since the first book.  The survival and health of our families, friends - ourselves depend on our constructive collaborations and actions.  Collective values and valid information are essential to good decisions.  This is not separate from self, family, or government.  And it is not necessarily aggressive.  It is a personal cause based upon some universal ideas.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win, without bloodshed; If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; You may come to fight with all odds against you, and only a precarious chance of survival.  "There may be even a worse fate: You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves." – (Winston Churchill, WWII British General)

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." – (Ayn Rand,  "Atlas Shrugged" 1930’s era author who characterized the ideal man via her novels)

If we wallow in darkness and don't wise up we will see a reversal of our freedoms that were paid for in blood.  With faith in God or Science and enough gathering of knowledge we become wise and good influences on our local area, government country and possibly the world.  Yet realistically “Shit Happens” and we don’t have any forewarning – or then again maybe we do.  With more widespread wisdom it's my hope that more of us will find faith in God or Government to contribute wisdom to our peers whom our ‘representative government’ and media will ‘satisfy’ us as it did last millenium.  Those pieces that don’t will fade while the rest will grow with us.

The relationship between government and its people is similar to the relationship between parents and children.  It is the government and parent's responsibility to protect the welfare of their subjects.  The children and citizen's responsibility is to teach their parents and government new and growthful wisdom.

In a popular children's story, it was a child who said the emperor had no clothes.  It is citizens who must say that some governmental laws and policies are wrong.  And even more importantly they need to offer better solutions. 

The information age has truly opened up the hope for increasing common sense and communication.  I believe we in the USA can all say the emperor has no clothes and not only get away with it, but cause real change for the better.  It is even noteworthy how 2 seemingly opposing sides in a topical battle seem to both end up in better positions.  Abortion is a good example where a recent report indicated a reduction in the rate over recent years regardless of laws allowing or disallowing.  It identified other laws providing support and adoption options more effective.  It was the very public debates and protests that seemed to increase the general awareness of the other factors which never did appear the primary public focus.

The risk of not acting to raise our consciousness by educating our governmental and media parents is the near certain deaths of our freedoms that were paid for with the blood of our ancestors for both ourselves and families.

In addition, we face a time where reliable technology predictions that include creation of computer intelligence greater than our own on our desktops in 10 years,  and networked better than our government is today.  Add political and geographical events with vested interest in the apocalyptic scenarios and you can easily see how a  world wide REVOLUTION IN THINKING as described in the bible can become a realistic prophesy worth of living for and by (really just “try”).

It’s now my hope and prayer that Jesus Christ’s inspiration demonstrates today’s application of the continuing ideal:






According to most Christian teaching (e.g.) and backed up by the bible, the ticket to heaven is faith and not works.  By believing in Jesus Christ we are free (salvation-wise) of all Law!  It doesn’t matter what we do wrong there’s still hope – for us and our nation!  This means that a belief in Jesus Christ assures our salvation (according to common Christian teachings) and has nothing to do with following laws (man’s or God’s).  This even makes logical sense because it directly leads to prioritization of Jesus’s interests over and above all others.  And as Jesus taught those interests are quite radical/severe causing most to temper their enthusiasm with a momentary reality at hand.  In other words a ____ person may still (do/be)____ even after learning of the truth.  That’s not to say changes won’t happen either – and often those happen quickly.

So why not sin?  Because we’re not physically free of law… the wages of sin is death.  In the realm of faith sin is sin meaning that we’re all sinners worthy of death (eternal).  But in the context of our lives it leaves us to choose from a wide range of sinfulness/purity/risk/benefit.  So being assured of salvation and having various ranges of satisfaction with our lives we’re free to sin if we want to as long as we watch our beliefs.  Of coarse there’s traps in that concept too.

To bring in another religion with a perspective quite at odds with Christianity, this means do what thou wilt shall be the whole law – law under will[ii].  This means that free will governs our lives and is a separate matter than heavenly salvation.  While the quote is from Alister Crowley who is usually represented as a Satanist, goodness may also make use of this phrase just like evil uses the bible for it’s own purposes. 

So how do we come up with values, a life style, happiness, etc?  Certainly the Bible is a great source of wisdom.  But it’s fairly reasonable to recognize that many have been beaten over the head with the book and had it’s stories twisted as they were retold into prejudicial uses and divisive legalisms. 

The bible is actually the best history book I’ve ever read.  It’s been tested, challenged, defended, and translated into every needed language on our planet.  As such it teaches us from other’s people’s experiences that God’s most basic laws were actually very intelligent and correct for their time and place. 

Similarly, the original laws of the United States of America are very intelligent and correct principals.  The founding fathers of the United States of America sought to create a system of the people, for the people, and by people.  This system relies upon the citizens to make up an important portion of the government in order to protect itself from corruption.  From the beginning this has been a continuous battle with many scandals and unseen manipulations of power.  At the same time, great advances to freedom have become today’s reality. 

Relating the past

In the previous millennium, totalitarian systems such as Hitler’s Third Reich manipulated our fears to make us believe ourselves insignificant.  Now, technology is making enforcement of any law (fair or not) very strong.  Technology has also been used to both take away and to protect our freedoms.  These trends will continue.

Evidence of attempts at freedom reversal are easily observed by watching current events (with perspective of justification).  For example, there is new (1999) policy in New York City to use existing drug laws to keep cars when someone is accused of drunk driving (even if they are found innocent).  Such new assaults on our freedoms are common.  Sometimes the justification is appropriate and sometimes it is not. 

It is the nature of human diversity for some to be at odds with government or parents over something.  Our lives and our world depend on how we handle this diversity. 

For we fight not against one another so much as principalities of good and evil!  The correct principals are important.  They help us complete our goals, especially eternal life! In contrast, incorrect principals are dangerous, or even deadly though sometimes profitable for existing government and businesses. 

The rapid advance of technology is bringing the issues of freedom to a head.  The world survived the crisifixion of Jesus Christ,  the fact that the USA survived the 1960's demonstrated that "We Shall Overcome" (racial protest song).  Can give us hope of our nation and world surviving the near term 2012 and beyond. 

Hoping to enjoy this gift of life on earth beyond the near term challenges I hope to inspire your help in the context of what’s great about the USA while also realizing there are many things about it that are not so good either.

Thus let us begin with a brief review of freedoms won and then some common sense.

Individual Freedom

"Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it"[iii].  Thus we do need to occasionally remember and review where we've come from as best we are able with what we have available.

We have as much uncertainty about our ancient past as we do about our future.  Just as important as thinking ahead is thinking about the past.  They are joined.  Neglecting either one has consequences.

If we believe we evolved from apes we were once free.  However, with the invention of civilization we sacrificed our freedom for survival.  If we believe we were put here by God, then we quickly wonder who was God and what was meant by what was recorded about God. More debate exists over who were the "Gods" than whether or not the "Gods" existed, but some modern atheists do assert that ancient man attributed everything to "Gods" from a desire to rationalize ignorance.

Our best records from civilizations of the ancient past had no real freedom as we know it today.  Our earliest history of Mayan, Egyptian and other civilizations comes complete with 450 foot (~45 stories, or 1/2 the Empire State Building in NYC) pyramids.  Conventional theory says they were built by thousands of slaves. 

However, there is some doubt to that theory and speculation that maybe they had extraterrestrial help. Fox's world-wide Egyptian television Special -- "Opening the Lost Tombs: Live from Egypt" -- was broadcast live from Egypt's Giza Plateau, March 2nd, 1999.  Inside they found carved walls that portrayed helicopters and UFOs - as thought they were linked to our future with a time machine. egypt-3d

Maybe that could explain how they moved 40 ton (80,000 lb) stones, and carved them more precisely than we are able today.  We do have laser technology that could  probably carve shapes like these into rocks quite quickly – and construct pyramids and so-on with fairly small crews. 

Recent scientific experiments also suggest the possibilities of parallel universes and time travel.  Also intereting are Aristottle, Plato, the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and some other historical writings.  Because of the presumed primitivness of the culture during these writings, their content is open to a wide range of interpretations.

By 500C.E. (common era), the Roman Empire collapsed and we fell into Pruitan Dark Ages controlled by ruthless popes, inquisitions, and "Witch Burnings". 

The renesaunce opened up free thinking, exploration, and "discovery" of the New World.  Columbus challenged conventional wisdom of 1490 by sailing over the edge of the flat earth, discovering America.  Imperialism and Puritanism destroyed native american cultures and imposed colonial versions of our existing American Continent systems.  Modern science got started with Newton, and Gallilao.

In 1776 the USA declared itself an independant nation. The Declaration Of Independance clearly asserted individual freedoms as the cornerstone of the United States of America:

decstone"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

When the USA was founded it still had slavery, heavy Puritanism, and many serious infringements on freedom and equality.  To its' greatest credit, the USA's history has been one of long term growth.  Most of that growth has been paid for with blood, starting immediately with the Revolutionary War against England.

The founding fathers continued their work protecting our freedoms by establishing our constitution. It's been compared to the bible in its significance. On September 17, 1787 it was signed by the constitutional convention and sent to congress. By June 21, 1788, conventions in nine states had approved it making it the law of the land. On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. They were approved by 2/3 of congress and the president in 1791. Subsequently additional amendments have been passed too.  These are the amendments critical to our individual freedoms today:

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

The civil war and Abe Lincoln ended slavery. ~1860-1865.  This is still the bloodiest battle in the history of the USA, and still the most recent war fought on US soil.

World War 1 prevented a foreign megalomaniac from taking over the world.  For the first time this was a real danger. ~1919.

Amendment XXI in 1933, repealed prohibition (Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]).  This preserved individual sovereignty over their-own bodies.  The period of prohibition is also known for the greatest level of corruption crime and gang activity the USA has ever known (until now with the War on Drugs).

World War 2 again prevented a foreign megalomaniac from taking over the world.  It ended in a big bang of a bomb and a baby boom. ~1945.  Hitler used the Occult, nationalism, racial pride, and intimidation to take over power from the German democracy.  Thus there was an example that a democracy like ours could be destroyed if the people could be fooled/intimidated badly enough. My grandfather who is still alive worked on the Manhattan Project - the first nuclear bomb.  I have a commemorative unopened bottle of wine and a deeper appreciation of the need for security in spite of the fact that it means killing for a cause.

The 50s opened up the real possibility of total annihilation and mutual assured destruction.  It began the cold war.  Fear and paranoia such as McCarthyism took our freedoms backwards.  Separate but equal gained strength. TV became established.  So did social elitism as portrayed by Ozzie and Harriet on TV. TV advertising became a brainwashing science.  It was effective on an audience that idealized the TV personalities and lacked the TV experience to know better.  The end of McCarthyism seemed to wake up allot of people.  So did President John F. Kennedy who led us out of the darkness into the 60s.  Secret government CIA operations increased including Cuba, Guatemala, and Honduras.

For your perspective on this author, I was born in 1963.  Thanks to my father's extreme interest in news I paid very close attention to the TV, even learning to talk very young by watching bugs bunny cartoons.  By 1965 I was beginning to comprehend what I watched.  The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy made a very strong impressions on me.  At the time my views were miles from dads'.  I identified with the protesters.  He did not.  We've both grown in our views since then - seeing a bigger picture.

The 60s were one of the biggest advances in freedom in our nation's history.  They were also a time of great political turmoil, war, and assassinations.  The CBS movie The 60s was a good summary of the sacrifices people made to accomplish these freedoms. 

1960s President Johnson continued the social advances of freedom initiated by JFK.  Yet many people attribute these accomplishments to the power Robert F. Kennedy held over Johnson's image.  Johnson and his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera started the Vietnam War by staging a phony attack on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin Vietnam. (See McNamera's apology "Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."  The phony evidence was used to fool Congress and the American people into giving the president authority to send more troops into Vietnam. By late 1965 185,000 soldiers were located in Vietnam and Social Security was merged with the General Fund to finance the war.  By the late 60s, the bloody destruction of children, and protesters being beat up by police were on color TV.

Truth's foothold got stronger via color TV and big gains were made in regards to Censorship - Rock-n-Roll baby!  It seemed music was the only forum for the truth.  No wonder the FBI kept such close tabs on John Lennon (  I kept asking "who are we fighting now daddy?". Later theories ( attribute assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King to the defense companies, the mob, and Johnson because Johnson would bring them money via war in Vietnam.  (JFK, RFK, MLK, and Lennon opposed the war in Vietnam and had great influence over public opinion).

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong planted his left boot on the moon and said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." I was at Sharkies, a local Binghamton bar (not drinking as a child) with my father who insisted I watch it because it was definitely historic.  He must have told me 10 times I would remember it for the rest of my life.  He was right (that's a powerful memory of warm tears).

Nixon was elected in 1969 after Robert F. Kennedy had been assassinated and therefore eliminated as a leading contender. He demonstrated skillful mastery of "Orwellian Doublespeak".  His rhetoric sounded like a withdrawal, but actually foretold his intentions of escalation. Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia, sent more troops to Vietnam, and authorized the use of deadly force at Kent State by National Guardsman.  11 students were wounded and 4 killed.  Over 6 Million were killed in Vietnam, 58,169 Americans.  When Nixon began to worry about getting re-elected he finally pulled out of Vietnam.  Then he was impeached for covering up a break-in to the Democratic party's campaign office.

In 1973 The case of Roe vs. Wade by the Supreme Court established legal Abortion without coat hangers for women.  That was fairly new for the Supreme Court to have such a large social impact.  The 70's ended Vietnam and impeached Nixon.  Everyone danced to the tune of disco (Saturday Night Fever).  Led Zeppelin gave us Stairway to Heaven and "getting the Led out" 20 years later.  We lost Jimmy Hendrix and Janis Joplin to drugs but the drugs made them who they were (demonstrating paradox).  Otherwise it was a national time of catching our breath and healing our wounds from the social and foreign wars.

John Lennon was assassinated in 1980.  The 80s seemed to be another backsliding like the 50s.  Social elitism grew and many called it the "me generation".  The computer became available to the middle class (as a word processor).   Ronald Ragan and George bush teamed up with Bill Clinton to pull off the biggest CIA scandal ever - in the name of saving the Contras in Honduras.

BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International - or the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International) was the financial mechanism behind the whole deal.  They were moving guns from the US to Honduras for drugs from Honduras to the US (into Mena Airport in Ark), and the surplus drug money went to Iran for hostages. On TV Ragan pretended that Iran released the hostages because he intimidated them (maybe they did fear his senility with a finger on "the button").  Later, Oliver North was the scapegoat who proudly took all the blame to get his fame (and his security fence).  Protecting Ragan and Bush, North smiled and admitted "Guns for Hostages" which was only part of the picture.  He waved the flag and the constitution and still went to jail.  Somehow most people seemed to miss the real facts.  The real facts were published in the NY Times and other sources, but buried requiring careful attention to find.

Now the Mena scandal has been better documented and published  The death list is long and usually attributed to Bill Clinton's rise to power.

The recent sex scandal is nothing but a cover-up attempt to protect the CIA from another drug scandal (like the one in California in 1997).  Anyone publishing the truth has been vilified by the CIA and national media.  Similar vilification occurred when Oliver Stone released JFK.  The cover-up attempt by Ken Star is an effort to keep the scandal from national attention without the CIA having to kill Clinton.  Does anyone believe that all Star could come up with was sex?  Remember how the stronger of the perjury charges died in congress?  Things are not as they appear.

The 90s appear to have been a time of growing up.  Because of technology such as the Internet and the lessons learned by the previous generations the 90s seem to be a time of growing awareness.  It's like everyone is becoming pregnant with information.  That information is all over the web (Internet).  There is more material on the Internet than in even our biggest library.  Some of it is biased lies.  Yet there is real quality on it too.  You get what you look for.

The political corruption of the 1990s seems to have been much more subtle and more dangerous than ever before.  Political Action Comities spent more money than ever before (~$1T/yr).  Foreign governments sponsor many PACs.  These big money interests have influenced a real assault on American freedoms.  The War On Drugs has been a cover to destroy the constitution via illegal search & seizure, surveillance, property confiscation, and elimination of fair trials.  Foreign PAC money influences against the USA favor exasperation of these problems.

The first decade of the new millenium is likely to be another time of great change and turmoil like the 60s was.   There is hope that the changes won't be as painful as they were in the 60s, but try telling that to the families of the 450,000 (>>1M by now) political prisoners from the "War on Drugs" (see that section for references).

A new era in common sense

"Every time the president opens his mouth, there's a substantial subtraction from public understanding." -- George Will (referring to Clinton in 1999)

This isn't true for everybody, just the general public who is easily fooled because of a lack of understanding the issues.  Slick politicians are good at manipulating the masses to accomplish their goals of controlling people, increasing laws, and strengthening positions of power. It's been going on ever since government was created. 

The counter-force has been growing in strength too.  It's called COMMON SENSE.  It's the only reason that things are better today than they were 20 years ago.  Otherwise blacks would be at the back of the bus and women would still be man's servants.  In clarification I’ll offer that I consider a “Christian” marriage male leadership role to simply  be the most exemplified of something satisfying for the individuals and that such male “leads” (final arbiter, planner, collaborator, etc). Health and other variations clearly can change things from that primary example.

My most basic premise to this work is the comparison of good government to good (common sense) parenting.  As we so often teach our children, 2 wrongs don’t make a right.  Therefore, we are ready for a new approach to how we are governed.  Public awareness is the strongest lead to governmental changes.

There have been 2 basic approaches to changing laws in this country.  These are

1. Abide laws and raise consciousness - electing leaders of change, marches, petitions, campaigns, communication, and education

2. Conscientious Objection - break bad laws and suffer consequences as a social statement, society cost, and potential for a jury or public cost motivated overturn of the law.  MLK, RFK and Lennon all held the controversial view that we have a moral obligation to break unjust laws.  Many persist along these lines today in belief of drug freedoms.

This book is a direct attempt at raising consciousness - common sense.  With modern technology there is evidence that common sense has entered a new era in that it is available to everyone.

The theory of conscientious objection has been successful too.  For example, it was the cause of the end of prohibition in the 1933.  Another often successful method to gain attention and therefore change is violence.  That can range from random little things to assassination and revolution.  While these techniques are effective they seem much more often painful and limited.

At the original writing in 1998, there were almost 1/2 million political prisoners from the war on drugs.  Now there are over 1 million.  There has been a generation of conscientious objection which seems not to have be working very well.  Only recently as a solution to budgetary crisis were drug-law issues starting to be re-examined.

Becoming a political prisoner doesn't seem to raise much conscience.  If you wish to use the objection approach I suggest you research the Fully Informed Jury Association (  Their purpose is to raise consciousness that any juror has the right and responsibility to vote his conscience and not just blindly follow the judge's instructions.

Here's a few more controversial topics to start thinking with (statistical references in later sections):

Jail - It is the ultimate assault on a person.  1 day there may surpass the trauma of a rape, especially when it includes strip-cavity searches on an innocent person.  False accusations are usually not appropriately punished in light of the consequence.

Drugs - USA in 1998 had >450,000 political prisoners from the "War on Drugs" (try that in Yahoo)

Motorcycle Helmets - 17% higher death/registration in mandatory helmet states, decreased deaths upon appeal in 32 states.

Motorcycle tires for dual-use - Road legal tires aren't safe off-road.

Seat-belts and Airbags - Binary laws further notion we need protection from ourselves, mandatory devices sometimes kill.

Law suits - Litigation costs even if the suit is baseless.

Accusations - Litigation costs heavily and who can't pay is jailed.

Plea-bargaining - Charging high eliminates right to fair trial and appeal of police wrongdoing.

Intoxicated Driving - Alcohol isn't only impairing force and chemical based testing approach isn't fair.  “Intelligent Reflex” testing would be.

Transportation, Insurance, and liability problems can enforce poverty (the welfare trap).

Money - Tax and welfare systems trap and stigmatize the poor.


Methods of organizing human behavior and societies must draw upon the most basic of instincts.  These are Feed, Flee, Fight, and Fuck.  Another view reduces basic instincts to simple fear and love.

Note that the instinctive behavior to learn falls into each of the categories above.  For example, one can learn to feed more efficiently by farming better.  Also, love and fear both fit into the 4 basic instincts.  Fear of starvation or love of good food both produce the desire to learn to farm better (Feed). 

In terms of social development and control of populations, love and fear are more basic than 4 basic animal instincts.  One can use either as a basis to conceptualize motives for laws and behavior that the culture desires.

Historically, governments and religions have manipulated fears.  The USA with its' constitution is historically unique in putting individual freedoms on an equal footing with the interests of the state. 

This book recognizes a trend toward the use of love in the USA.  It is my hope that recognizing and supporting this trend will strengthen it to the extent that love may overcome fear as good will overcome evil.  The battle is real.

To reform negative tactics into loving tactics, it is necessary to understand the negative tactics frequently used.  Thus the first two sections of this chapter will expose evil. Don't worry, I won't dwell too long on evil.  The second two sections will offer a better approach. 

FEAR - The old control

"To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead." - Bertrand Russell.

Consider God = love and evil = fear as a basic model.  It's obvious how fear has been the main ingredient for society control until very recently.  As so many religions teach, the world is evil and controlled by the devil.  By manipulating the fears of the masses political structures are able to create an US/THEM mentality. 

Historically this mentality has been crucial to our survival.  Without manipulated fears it's difficult to get men to fight in any war.  This type of fear is used to generate nationalistic pride and heroism.  Since Vietnam, technology has vastly reduced the size of the fighting force needed.  The remnant fear has been enough (so far) to gain volunteers without instituting a draft. Without the racial discrimination the USA is obviously something more worth fighting for.  The TV shows us how much worse off the rest of the world is and therefore amplifies this fear of falling.

Without induced fear and violence, good fighting men are scarce and along come invaders.  Thus our world has been built as "the most ruthless rules".  The living has been the winner of the "Mexican standoffs" (shoot first lives).  The counter-balance to this principle has been common sense as raised by our greatest martyrs (Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy, John Lennon, and many anonymous others).

I suggest the USA has finally outgrown this fear for a basic society necessity.  The USA has enough technology to preserve it's boarders without any more fear than the most basic fear of invasion and a little disaffected and/or heroic youth and paid for their efforts.  In contrast, Love conquers all and is the source of real courage like those who died at Kent State protesting the Vietnam War.

To this end it is important that we recognize that Christian and accuser are mutually exclusive terms since the bible does define Satan as the accuser (rev 12:10).  Watch out for someone who wants to blame a minority group and toughen a law to assault them, even if they seem like a bad bunch (ie: drug dealers).  This theme is carried well by the 1980s Pink Floyd movie The Wall.  As the bible says "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -- Matthew 7:16.

This is real important since one of the primary control tactic of old was to use religion (opiate of masses) to inject fears.  By exploiting peoples' fears (accusations, blame, scapegoats, and self-exaltation) many religious leaders have made a great deal of money at the same time they have furthered the cause of governmental control at the expense of individual freedoms.

Demonstrating what is wrong I'll offer this model of the evil nature contained in the government of the USA.  That is the three branches of government directly correspond to a trinity of evil:

Executive = Accusations (Rev 12:10 says Satan = accuser) (notice political adds that accuse opponents, police accuse individuals)

Legislative = laws are prescription for retribution (10x evil golden rule (next paragraph))

Judicial = judgement or implementation of retribution (Matthew 7:1 judge not that ye be not judged)

Consider the Golden Rule.  This is contained in the bible and it's very familiar to the masses.  In the context of evil, note the satanic twist (defined in the Satanic bible by Anton Levay  It goes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they do you wrong then do them back 10 times over so they never think of doing that to you again". Jury duty gets all of our hands bloody in this end.  It's been said that lobbyists (big money influence peddlers) are the 4th branch of government.  It's also said that the love of money is the root of all evil. 

Negative Tactics

To change our system we must become more aware of what worked and how.  Old negative tactics of government should be viewed as old negative parenthood tactics.  For example, spanking is now generally considered child abuse.  Some people still do believe in it but that is changing.

In extreme cases (ie: teaching a 2 yr old to stay out of the road) it's still accepted as appropriate.  However, in most cases spanking is just a cover for physical abuse and more importantly coupled to mental abuse of a child. 

Yea some of us remember being spanked in an era when everyone did that.  Just because everyone does something doesn't make it right.  Common sense has been the primary motive to change that behavior since spanking is still legal as long as you don't leave bruises or want to fight for custody in a divorce (then it would be considered abusive).

I propose imprisonment should be viewed in a similar way.  In extreme cases such as violent crime it is still the one remedy that allows us to feel safe from the abusers.  However, many times it is like using a spanking or a club to enforce unreasonable rules. 

I'll offer an environmental crime as an example here.  Terry C. bought an old building with an asbestos problem.  To use the building he moved the asbestos to one end of the property.  The police had him under surveillance doing this and charged him with a 25-life felony.  He plea-bargained for a 15 year sentence. Terry (the criminal?) has been destroyed.  His family is hurt.  His children are fatherless.  His wife must now get a job or welfare.  The asbestos problem lives on. 

Our solution with negative tactics had a very high human cost.  It also has a very high monetary cost.  Consider first the surveillance.  Then the prosecution, judge, and prison.  These are all paid by taxpayers.  Estimating… Surveillance $50K, prosecution judge and jury $50K (reduced by plea-bargain), and prison $60K/yr x 15 years.  The total comes to $1M.

Thus we taxpayers are paying $1M to destroy Terry and his family while doing nothing about the original problem of the asbestos.  Hmmm I think WE can do better.  If more thought were put into the prescribed remedy of the law breaking we might solve the problem.  I can offer a solution but it won't help unless WE all understand the idea and push for its' implementation into our existing government.

Another negative tactic is to induce widespread fear into the culture to further perpetuate the perceived dependence on bigger and bigger governmental systems.  "Thomas McMurray" wrote:

NO ESCAPING FROM FEAR:  Fear of atomic war; plotting of world leaders; Abolition of national boundaries making easy access for leading gangsters and criminals; Spiraling wages and prices leading to worldwide monetary collapse; Contamination and poisons in food and drink and increasing fear of the effects of atomic fallout; The fear and dread of big brother's electronic eye recording all about you; And the already felt working of the sinister person we read about in revelation 13 demanding that everyone be branded with his mark or number, or face the consequences; FEAR of the rapidly spreading Physical and mental diseases; cancer, AIDS, depression, etc.  Many are full of fear but know not what they fear! THERE IS AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR AND FOREBODING everywhere.

"Be Not Afraid" -- Matthew 17:7, Mark 5:36, (repeated)...

The risk of our inactivity is that things go on as they are or get worse.  That will definitely lead to a revolution, unless we've already lost and allow our world to succumb to negative rule forever.  If we end up in revolution we'll need this wisdom to insure that a new system will be better than our starting point.  Meanwhile let's teach our governmental parent a better way.

Love and Kids - a new approach

Love is a stronger force than fear.  Thus if we think enough about our goals and our approach we can achieve much better results as a parent or government by using love instead of fear to teach our subjects.  50 years ago the primary tool to teach children was rote memory and a heavy hand.  Now we've grown to a new approach based on social development.

Luckily, children are great teachers to their parents.  It's my belief that the government of the USA survived the 60's and 70's only because it learned from it's people not to discriminate on race or creed or sex.   Just like Archie Bunker (1970s TV sit-com All in the Family) learned from Meat Head that blacks are people too.  The USA demonstrated greatness by learning from its people to allow everyone who wants to vote to do so, as well as many other social reforms.

Another aspect of a loving approach is personal growth.  As a parent faced with extreme feelings of anger it is important to deal with oneself prior to handling the child.  By discovering the internal source of anger a parent begins to remember being that age themselves and thus even enjoy and laugh at situations where the child tests the parent.  The USA has done this too.  People who protested in the 60s risked their lives to oppose the government.  The government did look at itself via the 6:00 news.  Thus it faced itself and eventually learned.

Let me say in an evolutionary way, physical violence is a real danger and thus violent crime still warrants imprisonment as a way to protect the public from harm.  But what about other forms of crime?  Just like spanking may work but at a price too high for the child.  Imprisonment for many forms of "crime" will destroy our great nation.  In particular, 20 year sentences for drug sale or possession creates political prisoners not reform.

To counter-balance and reform the evil trinity of the USA offered above, let me now return to the idealistic model taught in all the schools. 

Executive - Practical Assurance of compliance to laws (includes president, police, military, and govt. agencies)

Legislative - Guidance to citizens (laws)

Judicial - Judgment of right and wrong

The voting system installs a representative nature to government.  Therefore, there really is hope that growing awareness of the culture will influence the laws and enforcement performed by governmental authorities.  As people raised their consciousness about race it became politically stupid to try passing a discriminatory law such as putting the blacks at the back of the bus or separate schools.  In fact the trend reversed to the opposite approach - bussing kids to racially mix school districts.

The 3 way split or balance of power also helps prevent corruption by one person. However, a firm understanding of the power and it's potential for both good and evil is necessary. 

Good Tactics

Like we teach our children, 2 wrongs don't make a right.  Punishment for non-violent crime is not a good tactic.  The punishment is the 2nd wrong.  Thus we need to look for better solutions to "crime" than punishment.  To explore this concept let's again look at Terry and the problem of environmental law.

First of all, if we recognize that Terry has probably learned his lesson and let him out of jail we can use the money already allocated to his imprisonment to solve his problem while at the same time preventing others from replicating his original crime.  It would mean allot to his family too. indicates that Asbestos is a false problem in that "USA Today says that its own investigation has found "incontrovertible scientific evidence that asbestos in buildings creates a cancer risk so minimal that it barely can be measured." ... "for each life saved, asbestos removal costs $100 million to $500 million".  For that cost think of how many others could be saved by simply paying their medical bills for treatments that are presently beyond their means. 

Not all cases of non-violent crime have such practical alternative solutions as a simple repeal of the laws.   In a more general cases there could be required counseling, community service, property forfeiture (only after conviction), and so-on.  Many other deterrents can have a constructive effect for society at large.  Prison clearly does not.

Improving Social Services

We have a vast number of problems that appear easily solved with one simple solution, workfare.  However, too much of such a thing becomes socialism (the nearest implemental neighbor of the communism principal).  With the aging demographics of the USA, voters are easily tempted to socialize health insurance and medicine.

What's wrong with socialism?  Stagnation.  Without the unemployment gap there is no motive to workers to perform well against the threat of unemployment.  Anyway, I'll expand on the ideas of it because there are many efficiencies to be gained from consolidation of functions.  From there I would hope to come up with some form of balance between the efficiency gained without the crippling affects of eliminating the worker-stimulant.  After all, a small child in need is different than someone who has allot of money (not implying "means" tests yet).

Radically changing demographics are coming from aging, the information revolution, a second stage to the industrial revolution, the environment (ie: disasters), and even religious events.   Now we’re entering into an ‘entertainment’ revolution.  This is Sodom-Gomorrah and the Garden Of Eden wrapped into one package!

"[The] 1930's the New Deal offered by Franklin D. Roosevelt contained the ideals of workfare at the height of the Depression. The workfare proposed, and implemented, was the reason so many families were able to eat during this time. FDR's plan worked and gave government jobs to many who were without. This plan ended sourly when the population on workfare grew to such proportions that the New Deal couldn't keep up with the demand. That and a little thing called W.W.II.  The Army became a great employer for those times." --

"90% of the money spent on welfare goes to pay for it's delivery." -- Columnist David Horowitz on TV 2/14/1999.  That means that there are roughly 5 workfare employees of government for every welfare recipient.  What do they do?  Well mostly they insure that only "eligible" recipients receive "welfare".   Also we have forgotten that all government paid employees are essentially workfare employees.  From this perspective, cops, judges, some lawyers, prison guards, military, and even defense company employees are essentially workfare employees.

As reported by NCPA, the effectiveness of the money spent on welfare has seriously degraded over time {*the hard to read dates on graph are 1950, 1955... 1990.  In 1995 spending goes off the scale to almost $397M*}:


Hmmm, is this showing some sort of correlation to socialism?  More $ in while the poverty rate remains at a fixed level.  Note the crossover point would be my choice for a spending target.  Any more is obviously just pissed away.  On the other hand, $200B is enough to simply write a $1000 check to every citizen and simply ask them to take care of those in need because the govt won't.  Another way to look at it is it costs $1K per capita of which less than half work.

Welfare carries with it a negative social stigma because it is often abused.  The abuse of the welfare system creates a perception of something-for nothing, laziness, and social irresponsibility.  Sadly the stigma is often attached to many people who are truly in need of help at no fault of their own.  This is clearly counter-productive.  Among younger people, social Security Suffers the same stigma in that many able (and even wealthy) people are receiving something for nothing (the old corrupt promises are dismissed by the young). 

Even worse, a simple change to our existing laws such as drug legalization could create a huge unemployment situation.  Therefore, to eliminate the abuse of the existing establishment structure we'll need a better social net than our existing welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment, and Immigration systems (a patchwork of Band-Aids).  It would be nice (most cost effective and manageable) to have a single system that is productive rather than burdensome to the rest of the taxpayers.

Presently, states are responsible for welfare as funded federally.  That should lead to identifying the state with the best solution and implementing a scaled up version of it nationally.  Meanwhile political rhetoric about saving social security has picked up.  There's a fine line between the truth of it and a pandering to the elderly with our national budget/security.  Propping up the existing social security system without addressing it's cost or effectiveness would be the worst possible result.

The elderly have the voting power to vote themselves the national budget.  Since that would be suicidal for even them, they won't as long as they don't get tricked into it.  They've already been fooled into being the single largest item in the national budget at $336B of the $1.7Trillion total (Military and interest to the national debt are next in size),


Now let's consider welfare/workfare from another angle.  A friend of mine spent 10 years in jail and was released 10 years ago.  Since then most of his work has been "under the table" because most big employers fear him for his criminal record.  He often spends his days picking up cans to earn a few dollars.  Welfare has delayed accepting him over and over for a series of technical reasons.  He survives with hard work and a little help from his friends.

A reasonable workfare program would provide him with a safety-net employment for a fair minimum wage.  And if he's an Alcoholic (implying by extreme stereotype (oops is that discriminatory?) that he can't show up on a rigorous schedule), it would allow him to show up when he needs a meal or a place to sleep.  Currently, there are many reasons for people having trouble with rigorous work schedules leading them onto welfare.  Blaming people for their self-created problems doesn't solve the problems induced at a higher level (like homeless on the streets and temporary situations).

If you doubt this idea just consider what would happen if we let 1M political prisoners from the drug war (with felony records making them easy targets of employment discrimination) out of jail?  Mass unemployment? Or massive stimulation?  We need something better such as a workfare program originally invented by Roosevelt.  Note that if drugs are legalized the release of drug dealers probably wouldn't cause crime.  Rather, we get unemployed jailers, cops, lawyers, judges, prisoners, etc.  For every prisoner in jail there are another 2 or 3 employed in putting and keeping them there (a la $60K/year/inmate).  Obviously that sort of employment when over-used (ie: high prison population via drug laws) is a burden to the system.  In other words, such jobs are actually counter-productive to the economy and laying them off and giving them welfare or a meanial workfare job would be cheaper in total!

If any person has some disability (ie: age, drug, physical, mental, health) and is unable to work a full schedule, hours can be reduced or the nature of the work can be changed.  This way, the "workfare" system would provide a real assurance to our citizens that our governmental parent insures the basic survival needs of every child/citizen. Time limits, job placement services, and training programs are all means to keep the stimulus of real employment intact without relying so much on people's fear of unemployment.

New York City has instituted workfare with it's welfare recipients.  The NCPA ( study shows signs of success, with some dissenting views:

Overall, the city's welfare rolls have fallen by 36 percent to just fewer than 200,000. Around 22,000 people asked to work dropped out immediately, saying they had already found jobs. Of the 123,000 who have gone through the program, around two-thirds dropped out, and the city doesn't know what happened to them -- 12,000 of the program graduates reported finding jobs in the private sector. 

One requirement for such a system to function would be that people who have trouble showing up for work would be able to show up the next day for at least a partial benefit.  As Roosevelt designed the original - a day's work for a day's pay (and yes 1/2 day for 1/2 day pay). This would eliminate the highest cost of administration - testing who is qualified.

Another requirement for such a system to function is allowing reduced work hours for those who are not capable of a full schedule for valid medical reasons (ie: disability compared to motivation).  For this reason I suggest a few categories rather than a new category for every possible condition (and the administrative cost of that).  For example, there should be categories such as "skilled" (w/ more variation), "disabled", "partly able", "day for pay", and "transitional" - ie: unemployed".

With the demographic changes or drug legalization, doctors who don't get enough profit in private practice could now work as public consultants in a workfare system.  They could double-check the private research people do, and add a safety layer rather than being in the way as our present system puts them.  Since doctors are so highly skilled it would be reasonable for such a workfare system to allow higher wages for a doctor role, but not too much since it's a public safety net and not a totally communist replacement for private industry.

Best of all it pays for itself.  Instead of paying something for nothing we start getting our money's worth and more.  Projects can be geared toward establishing or improving career possibilities in the private sector.  Some New York City pilot programs have even had success launching small businesses operated by welfare recipients.  In one case a mother established her own day-care center with employees all paying taxes!

Note that this proposal has its' roots in communism but is not communist.  The communist system doesn't allow for capitalism.  This proposal does and really all it's changing is the structure of the welfare system of old which has many flaws and abuses.  By borrowing the beneficial elements of communism and incorporating them into our capitalistic system we get the benefits of both.  It doesn't have to be one or the other.  Both have merit and together the USA can improve.  Similarly USSR and other communist countries are benefiting from incorporating a tolerance of capitalism into their communistic systems.

Changing Demographics - Industries/Careers

Massive change is occurring in our culture.  The advent of the Internet and other forms of communication have taken away the ability of the establishment to control the flow of information.  The oldest and strongest tool of government was propaganda.  Since propaganda is no longer controllable, new methods are necessary.  We must either strengthen our controls or wise up.  If we choose strengthening, it will oppress and kill us.  Educating the "dumb masses" into the "intelligent majority" is a fairly new concept for any government.  In the 60s we survived a serious dose of real common sense.  Thus I believe we can do it!

Entitlements and Age

The book review for Gray Dawn by Peter G. Peterson on describes a social security crisis this way:

In today's developed world, people aged 65 and over represent 14 percent of the total population. That share will almost double by 2030. In the United States, the 85-and-over set will more than triple. And fertility rates are so low in many developed nations that populations may actually fall to half of today's size before the end of the next century, causing a huge imbalance between the young and the old.

Within the next thirty years, the official projections suggest that governments would have to spend an extra 9 to 16 percent of GDP annually simply to fulfill their old-age benefit promises. The developed world, taken collectively, has already promised future retirees some $35 trillion in public pension benefits-and much more including health benefits for which no money has been set aside. How countries choose to deal with these mega unfunded liabilities will become the most expensive economic question in world history.

The NCPA Study, Future Burden of Elderly Entitlements presented the problem to congress with this graph:


Medicare and Medicaid are in serious trouble too.  As Peterson put it on a TV show "How we proportion healthcare will determine if we survive as a nation".   He offers real solutions too such as an affluence test to determine who qualifies for benefits and some way to determine a threshold of cost vs survival.  In that context he talked about how much higher costs were on average for patients over 85 compared to 65-85. 

According to Beatrice M. Disman, the Regional Commissioner of Social Security for the NY Region, 3/9/1999:

          44M Collect Social Security (16% US Population)

          4M are children

          3.3M are over 65 and 3/4 of them are women

          5.4M are Widdows with children

          4.3M are disabled workers

          The average Benefit is $780/month

          2/3 over 65 have no other income

Rep Maurice Hinchey NY 26 District Congressman reported 3/9/1999:

In 1965 President Johnson consolidated the Social Security budget into the General Fund in order to fund the Vietnam War.

A strong economy can extend the life of Social Security without changing the system.

Social Security had a shortage in 1983, and borrowed from the Disabilities fund.

There is no budget surplus in 1999 without including Social Security with the General Fund.  The first real surplus is expected in 2002 if at all.

Johnson's 1965 consolidation of Social Security into the General Fund corrupted the integrity of the system.  Revenue needed 10 years from now was spent in the 60s and 80s for war and cold war.

The retirement issue is difficult to solve because so many people feel social security is owed to them as a part of their retirement program that they have paid into.  After all, that's how it was sold to the USA citizens in the first place.  The problem is that this promise has been corrupted since 1965.  For 35 years it's money (~$1T) has gone into the general fund. If a commercial retirement system redirected funds like that the company officers would be jailed.

In 1993 a balanced budget resolution was passed by congress as urged by Bill Clinton.  This was absolutely necessary to prevent bankruptcy of the whole USA.  As it is, the "Net Interest" on the national debt is almost as large as military spending (see the Workfare section).  What's worse is that retirements are heavily invested in this national debt via bonds and CDs. This means the interest rate should go up as retirees cash in their savings (decreasing supply with still increasing demand).

The right to have a retirement attitude will cripple the USA completely if it isn't dispelled.  Being the largest and best-organized block of voters, the elderly can vote themselves the budget.  If that happens the USA will go bankrupt and everyone will loose. Doing nothing will have the same effect.  Even the elderly don't really want that dark scenario to play out.  However, we must educate them truthfully before they do vote for idiots promising them the moon while ignoring reality.

Our survival is at stake.  We must get realistic about dealing with this problem. Life expectation is at an all time high and increasing fast.  The general idea of retirement is outdated.  How can someone who works 35-45 years expect 50 years of retirement? The system was designed expecting 90% of them to die within 5 to 10 years of retirement. Extended life-span is why Social Security = Welfare. 

30 years ago, the average infant's life expectancy was 72.  Now the infant's life expectancy is up to 78 and climbing faster each year.  In 30 years it's climbed by 6 years.  However, just 1 major breakthrough in science could make dying the exception rather than the rule. 

DNA technology makes the possibility of living 1000 years real!  The US Department Of Engergy is funding a "Human Genome Project" (, and  The project, is scheduled to be complete by 2005.  Corporate interest and investment in the project has accelerated the expected completion date to 2002.

The reason for the interest is the power over all of the human ailments.  Once the genes are known viruses can be used to change DNA on living subjects (viruses change DNA to replicate themselves).  Therefore, delivery of DNA changes is very simple.  This offers a real expectation for cures to cancer, AIDS, and just about any other disease you can think of.  The ability to manipulate DNA truly is the fountain of youth.

The only form of real retirement that will live on is having enough money to live on the interest.  For example, $1M generates roughly $100K/yr interest.  Living on a retirement of 30K/yr would allow the principle to grow with inflation.  Otherwise retirement = welfare.  We cannot afford to support able bodied or able minded welfare recipients forever while their numbers grow and grow.

Another solution of serious merit recommended by the NCPA includes increasing the retirement age at a given rate such as 1 month per year.  Thus 12 years from now the retirement age would be 1 year higher.  For this rising retirement age concept to be successful people must die on time.  Technology is making that very unlikely.  However, bankrupting the USA would kill allot of us.  Therefore, proposals to simply increase retirement ages are nothing but Band-Aids pandering to the elderly voters.

Social Security suffers the same stigma that welfare does in that people on the program receive money from everyone else even though they are most often capable of working and supporting themselves (even if not at their previous wages or work schedules). 

Some estimates show that 40% of the Social Security recipients are "non-deserving", including immigrants, and prisoners.  An age 62 immigrant can draw $450/mo, more than many American woman.  Obviously someone in prison isn't in need of social security for survival.  An immigrant may be in need of income but willing to work.  Both cases of perceived injustice to American taxpayers would easily be solved more appropriately with a workfare system - the prisoner's work would be as it is now in jail.  The immigrant would receive the same allowances for health as anyone else without creating a perception of unfairness. 

The wealthiest age group is retired. This amplifies the stigma, "welfare for the rich", younger people often feel.  "Means testing" is frequently talked about solution to this.  The counter argument is the original promise of getting back what you put into the system.  Again, that promise was corrupted 30 years ago by Johnson's consolidated budget and theft of SS funds for the Vietnam War.  Since then we have not had a balanced budget meaning FICA = extra income tax since 1965.

A workfare system is a real solution, especially with accommodations made for the individuals health needs.  For simplicity and cost effectiveness (good business), the Social Security and Welfare of today must be merged into a new workfare system.  There we can give increased vacation time and reduced hours to elderly recipients.  Also having one simple system eliminates the existing complexities of Social Security, Welfare, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Taxes, the IRS, and so on. 

If you are reaching retirement age and wondering what to do, start by not retiring until you become a million-air.  Chances are that your existing career would be more fulfilling and profitable than workfare.  If you don't like your career then plan ahead toward finding a new career.

The Information Revolution

The information revolution is having a huge impact on the intellectual careers.  Available information reduces the demand for knowledgeable people.  Thus any person who once used their mind, knowledge, and skill to rise above the average of the workforce will become displaced in one way or another.  We must either make proactive change or watch further perversion of the system.  This includes professions such Engineering, Doctors, and Lawyers.  The Information Revolution includes another big step toward completion of the older industrial revolution.  There will be great gains in automation by robots for manufacturing, food production, and transportation.  Retail isn't even safe since it can be eliminated via direct sale.

Let's expand this thinking by considering doctors as a basic example for my premise.  With the Internet, it's easy to do your own research on your topic of interest.  If you have a simple problem it's easy to do a couple hours of basic research and find your remedy.  The cost of doing the research is just a little of your time following a natural interest.  If your research or remedy doesn't produce an easy cure, a doctor may still be a helpful consultant.  Thus the demand for doctors to perform traditional tasks will go down.

In the established status quo, doctors even stand in the way of the cure.  In order to obtain the medicine your research indicates, you must have a doctor appointment (pay the doctor) in order to obtain a prescription.  Meanwhile, the problem may spread while you are waiting for your appointment.  Not only does this cause untreated ailments to fester and spread, it creates a subtle black market for home remedy and other drugs otherwise illegal (ie: a friend's medicine). It also motivates people to go to emergency rooms when they could have simply gone to the drug store.

Sudden Changes

Technology growth isn't the only potential for radical mass unemployment. Natural disasters, wars, alien contact, religious revelations, and economic forces can suddenly shift demographics over night.  This is why changing welfare into a workfare program will become a necessity.

The War on Drugs has been lost. By the time we do repeal drug laws we'll have the release of over a Million political prisoners. Then we'll need to consider new roles for cops who aren't tasked with arresting as many as possible.  There'll be unemployed lawyers, judges, prison guards, and so-on.  The demographic shift will be huge.

The War On Drugs

"Everybody Must Get Stoned" -- Bob Dylan.  Well that may sound dumb but it reflects a widespread conscientious objection mentality.

The 1970s "Rockefeller" drug laws include "mandatory minimums".  Thus possession w/o intent to sell 4 Oz of Crack is a 15-life felony for a first offender.  How can drug possession for personal consumption be more serious that rape or murder?  The War On Drugs has destroyed our notions of proportional penalties for crime.  Our old notions of fairness are replaced by a sense of injustice that non-crimes are prosecuted primarily minorities to eliminate their voting power.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice

According to ONDCP, the Federal drug control budget increased from $1.5 billion in fiscal 1981 to $13.2 billion in fiscal 1995.

In fiscal year 1993 the DEA completed 16,690 asset seizures valued at $680 million

25% (or 284,738) of the 1,136,819 inmates in prisons in 1996 were there solely for drug offenses.

Barry McCaffery reports the 2000 drug control budget is planned to increase to $17.8B.  In congressional review on CSPAN 3/12/1999, Orin Hatch asked Janet Reno if she was sure there was enough money in the proposed budget for drug enforcement (implying he wanted to spend more).

There are 10M Alcoholics and 4.1M drug addicts. 

DCPA (Office of Drug Control Policy Administration) reports that inmate population is up to 1.8 million in 1998.  It also reports that 60% of federal and 21% of state inmates are there for drug offenses only (confirming the 25% figure from the US Department of Justice).  That means that the War on Drugs has increased the number of political prisoners to 450,000 in 1998.  It also means a trend toward 625,000 by the end of 2000 and 1M by 2005.

How is it sold to us?  Well it's easy to say bad drugs do bad things to good children.  Therefore, let's toughen the laws enforcing our will on those who don't care or don't agree.  The problem with this construct is that the remedy prescribed by the existing laws is retribution.

The "War on Drugs" has a very big detrimental effect on our hard-won freedoms.  With new technology it's leading to a new era of Nazi Gestapo tactics (like Hitler employed Germany). Thus the game of foolery is shifted to a new front.  Because there is no "crime victim", police tactics become dirty.  Police must are commanded by their leaders to wire-tap, search, harass, and monitor ordinary citizens.  This is George Orwell's 1984 scenario "Big Brother Is Watching You".  If a spouse were to do what police regularly do, most people would divorce.  Just like in Orwell's book, technology is making these tactics more and more intrusive and offensive.  Just like prohibition, we need a constitutional amendment giving us chemical freedom to control our own bodies.

The felony drug convictions in Florida have eliminated voting rights of 1/4 of the black men.  Thus civil rights groups including the NAACP,, are against the War On Drugs.

A PBS show by Peter Christ (Cop) and Mark Blum (Attorney) (aired 2/13/1999 in Syracuse) discussed a rampant problem for freedom of minorities in large US cities.  Peter said minorities and others who fit profiles are singled out for non-voluntary cavity searches.  If any thing is found or planted the person is charged with a felony and offered a plea.  If the person accepts the plea they can't complain about the anal/vaginal cavity search being unconstitutional.  If nothing is found or planted the police simply lie saying it never happened.  If the person appears to have the means to fight it in court they won't be bothered in the first place. 

Peter Christ is a founding member of Reconsider, an organization in New York State aimed at ending the war on drugs. This website graphs the prison population of New York as follows: prison

Ever since the 60s the black market has made any drug desired available for the right price.  Most individuals under 40 have had personal experiences with drugs (not laws) leading them away from drugs.

Do drug laws decrease drug use?  NO!  60 Minutes on 2/21/1999 did a segment about how a law making smoking cigarettes illegal for minors in Florida actually led to increased numbers of smokers among rebellious kids (and more rebellious sentiment by most kids).  They went on to say that the tobacco companies actually were in favor of anti-smoking laws and that the anti-smoking lobbyists were against it.  Why?  Because supporting anti-drug laws and advertising gives tobacco companies the image that they are working to reduce smoking while at the same time these laws have the reverse effect of their surface value meaning they profit by more smokers buying their product.  TV coverage of a Florida Judge on Court-TV 3/4/1999 skirted the real issue stating that 1/3 of those arrested quit smoking.   1/3 smokers that age probably would quit anyway.  The real problem is the resentment caused by the law driving up the number of NEW smokers (that's why RJR Reynolds was behind it).  That judge probably supports the law for his sense of job security.

The UK Department of Health's consultative document on tobacco advertising (informally known as the 'Smee Report' makes a similar assertion.  It concludes advertising does not have a statistically significant effect in any form, and the direction of causal relationship between advertising bans and declining tobacco consumption is most likely the opposite to that often assumed.

As drugs are a medical problem, survival of the fittest still keeps most of us away from drugs.  Drug laws prevent those with addictions from getting good treatments because of laws that frighten addicts into hiding.

Drugs, are primarily a problem of political oppression.  By allowing a "War on Drugs" we have allowed a half million people to become political prisoners in this country.  There are many times that number of people who have had legal, financial, physical, and social traumas caused by the battles inflicted on them by this war.  Police tactics even include coercing people to nark (rat or tattle) on their friends and family in exchange for freedom. 

The FBI reported 15M people arrested for felonies in 1997.  If 25% (as in the prison population) are arrested for drug crimes, then approximately 4 Million are traumatized each year.  That means over 2% of the US population annually suffers a trauma as severe as rape by the government.  Assuming the average litigation cost of exoneration is ~$5K / case, $20B is spent by citizens defending themselves.  In total, the cost of the War On Drugs comes to comes to ~$50B/Year, 1/4 of what we spend on education ($265B)!

What kind of education would you rather have for your own children?  Crime school or college?  In NY, a $600K decrease in state university funding was matched (in timing not a specific bill) by a $700K increase in prison spending.

The propaganda is thick because the stakes are so high.  If you could get any drug you wanted at the drug store you might not go to the doctor.  You wouldn't get arrested.  You wouldn't need a lawyer, judge, prosecutor, or prison cell.  Of coarse we're taught by the media that we can't handle such freedom.  Well WAKE UP!

What's the most addictive drug?  Nicotine. Heroine and cocaine fall in after that. Other drugs are anti-addictive such as LSD, marijuana, and mushrooms.

Drug education that's honest is effective.  Dishonest education is counter productive.  For example, teaching children that LSD is addictive (false) leads to a disbelief of the whole message about LSD (the part about the bad experiences).  False advertising (paid for with our taxes) shows someone smashing an egg and then the whole kitchen as a statement about what drugs do.  Often such hypocritical advertising is followed immediately by an advertisement for some form of legal drug more dangerous than the recreational ones.

False propaganda was used in the 50s and 60s as part of the campaign to eliminate competition to aspirin sales (pot is a more effective pain reliever).  Prior to that marijuana was widely produced for rope and cloth.  More recently it's been determined to be a more efficient source of paper than wood, a highly nutritious food source (the seeds), still the strongest cloth, and easily produced without soil erosion.  And even more importantly it has widespread medical use for cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, anxiety, and other medical conditions.

The real answer to keeping kids away from drug dealers is to put the dealers out of business rather than jail.  Drug laws make drug use a status symbol of rebellion. Juvenile status makes it less risky for kids to do the dealing.  Minors have greater access to drugs because they are illegal.  If you could buy pleasure drugs at the gas station (like beer) then underground dealers wouldn't be selling them to kids.  Yea sure there's still a rebellion factor to age limiting drug use.  But until age 18 kids are still "controlled" by their parents in addition to the state.

As for dealers, Jail seems only to toughen them.  Legal dealers like drug stores, grocers, and mini-marts can be easily regulated as they are for cigarettes and alcohol.  Of coarse kids still do get cigarettes and alcohol but not to the extent of illegal drugs.  Also, parents are much more involved with kids experiencing and/or understanding legal drugs.  Often kids experience alcohol culturally (ie: French) and tobacco being required to finish what they start - the whole cigarette makes them sick and disinterested.

The solution to the drug problems of the USA is simple, repeal all drug laws and release the political prisoners.  We'll need workfare to handle the mass unemployment created but it will be truly joyous as families and friends are reunited.  We could also help by making drug treatment freely available to anyone requesting it.

I should point out that changing the punishment from jail to "house arrest" or some other change would only lead to a Bigger Brother scenario with deeper rebellious sentiment of the masses.  Our parents won't be too hard to educate since many of them remember prohibition from the 30's.  It's all the vested interests that will be the toughest challenge.  Even they will change their tune when they realize how alone they are (otherwise read the declaration of independence again!).


Drug Abuse Resistance Education is a farce.  Why do we allow our children to be subjects to educators without even a college degree who tell them to nark on their parents? 

Drug education which works is medical and statistical in nature.  Beyond what the uneducated police are capable of teaching.  Allowing a cops to try educating, they bumble the whole job resorting to what they know - bully tactics.  They offer scary anecdotes mixed with false information.  The false information perverts the message badly.  Some children reject the whole believing drugs are "good". Other children do become scared while falling into the trap and then trapping parents and others.  This dishonesty in education causes a rebellion sentiment that is already strong in children (increasing the tendency for children to do the dealing). states:

"D.A.R.E., Partnership, et al have been focusing on children, convincing us and them that the children are warriors and must be miniature soldiers in this dirty drug war. They've sent them the message that its okay to be a bully, a thief, and a liar, as long as you have the power to make it stick. They've taught them that they are not responsible for their own behavior, that their parents are incapable, and that if drugs were gone, all the problems of the nations would disappear. They've taught the young ones that human beings are disposable, dispensable, and that there's no alternative. These are very unrealistic and dangerous messages. If we don't find a better policy for dealing with drugs than this 30 year failure, the next era of adults will be nasty little nazis, unloving and loyal to none.", and

"My six grandchildren are just human. At the rate we're going, three of them will get locked up within 20 years, and the other three will begin to hate them as they go about the government's business of keeping everyone confined, All of them slaves to ignorance.", and

"Law enforcement doesn't explain to the kids what a horrible system their parents and friends will enter; They are told snitching will help them, make life better somehow for everyone. Then the children end up crying themselves to sleep in a foster home, wondering what went wrong." -- Kay Lee

The Establishment

"Government governs best which governs least."

Sadly, further perversion of our existing system is not only an alternative but the preference of the establishment.  For example, the doctor profession can be preserved in the short term by making over-the-counter medicine illegal, and escalating the "war on drugs".  That way no matter how you are sick you'll need a doctor to fix it for you, or you'll be supporting all the other black industries such as drugs, police, lawyers, jails and so-on.  The World Health Organization (part of the WTO of the UN) has set guidelines classifying herbal remedies as drugs.  Over the counter remedies are facing a similar assault.  The counterbalance comes from the commercial success of these medications and the PAC money that generates.

There are already media reports that tend to lead to more restrictive drug legislation.  For example, on 3/1/1999 CNN-HNN reported that 1.5Mpeople per year are overdosing on over the counter drugs. That was the headline.  The rest of the story reported that most were using more than one drug at a time and that the problems came from combinations.  Even doctors don't know the combination effects of most drugs beyond the labels.  All the labels usually say is the obvious like don't use 2 depressants together. On 3/11/1999 they reported that 100K people per year were hospitalized for misusing over-the-counter drugs and that new labels have bigger print.

The establishment is well entrenched.  That is why some things appear to keep getting worse.  Those who stand to make a great profit have fooled the masses.  Other culprits are a low-grade form of conspiracy in that each member only has to go along a little bit to make a profit (living).  And since the "dumb masses" are already fooled why not just go along to get along? Because it will kill us all.

It goes on the theory that you can fool most of the people most of the time.  The only loss is when most of the people refuse to be fooled for a short time.  That's when the game changes.  For example, Martin Luther King converted the majority of the people from being discriminatory to being accepting of racial differences.  The old establishment that took advantage of that situation had to find a new game to play.  Just after that Nixon started our "war on drugs".  hmmm

At election time we're often told by the media that voting for 3rd party candidates is throwing away our vote.  I suggest that voting for a choice of two obviously corrupt candidates is even worse than throwing away a vote.  It is far better to vote the 3rd party or a blank vote than to affirm gross misconduct.  A blank vote carries more statement than does not voting.  Mickey Mouse might just win on a write-in.  Write in someone you trust like your news-anchor or an advocate in a political organization.


A friend describe the "doctor's racket" she's dealt with.  She has bipolar disorder with mood swings.  Her medication has been the same (Doxin) for 25 years.  However, she's not allowed to simply get her medicine at the drug store.  Rather she must go to the doctor once each month to get her prescription for a refill from the drug store.  Her doctor spends less than 5 minutes with her and doesn't even check anything.  He just asks a couple questions.  She says "fine, just renew the prescription".  He does and then calls the next patient.  Then she gets billed for a 1-hour exam as the minimum time increment billed by his office.  His cost is $100/hr.  Meanwhile someone else is waiting as she's leaving meaning the 1-hour billing is a scam too.

For the ignorant we have induced a tendency of doctors to become drug dealers in a sense.  Often they over-prescribe addictive or life-long medication such as Prozac, Zantak, Viagra, and other medications (I don't mean to imply that all cases are over-prescribed).  Yet clearly there is a whole side of the psychotherapy industry that uses drugs rather than personal growth.  Don't face yourself and grow or question authority, just take a drug.  It's common knowledge that the King of Rock-n-Roll, Elvis Presley ( had a doctor prescribed drug problem (his doctor's story:

In addition our media sends the wrong message.  You have a headache so get drug X.  Take Y so you can eat harsh food.  Ask your doctor about drug Z.  Well I say don't eat the foods that give you heartburn.  Taking drug Y should be a last resort, not an advertised pleasure.  I mute or flip the TV when faced with such aggravating advertising. I noticed a friend did the same with the commercial that shot a mouse out of a cannon for shock value.

Again we'll need workfare for the doctors who become displaced by ending the War On Drugs and the "doctor's racket".


Widespread issues of brutality and corruption exist everywhere.  According to the 20th Century with Mike Wallace, Crooked Cops, Aired on March 2 1999.  It exposed how drugs have made police corruption worse. Today's bad cops aren't just taking payoffs but sometimes they're the crime bosses themselves. The show documented the history of such corruption being widespread. On the show, the biggest drug bust ever, "the dirty thirty" was inside the NYC precinct in 1995.  1993-1996 over 50 cops were arrested on felonies in New Orleans alone.  Corrupt individuals such as Mark Fuhrman (a racist cop who ruined the police credibility in the OJ Simpson trial seriously effect the image of police forces everywhere.

The repeal of drug and prostitution (a later chapter) laws would reduce the opportunities and motives for corruption.  From there, better roles can be developed.

I suggest we should grow the role of cops to become social and crisis management work rather than arresting and accusing (and drug peddling and pimping).  Since they are public employees, they already represent a large workfare program.

Particularly important in the growth of their role will be crisis assistance.  Just because a couple is fighting and someone is frightened WILL BE a good reason to call for help.  It's not a good enough reason to arrest someone for domestic violence (as presently done).  Sometimes a crisis arbiter can do great good just by being there.  For example, a crisis between a married couple with crisis intervention my prevent violence and thus save a life or a marriage.

Why not call the cops when all that is wrong is a personal crisis of anger? Presently people don't do this because the cops have a well earned public image (portrayed on the TV documentary series "COPS") of showing up looking to arrest someone if at all possible.  If either person utters even a false accusation the other is hauled away.

I once called 911 when some teenagers were littering in my front yard and disrespectfully talking back to my request that they stop.  Since other neighbors were around I didn't fear a false accusation.  I yelled at the 911 operator rather than venting my rage at the kids.  The cops never did show up.  Why not have the cops come and talk (teach the kids to clean up).  Again crisis management is far better than a no-show until after there's been an exchange of violence.

The job of cops was once considered honorable.  However, the war on drugs has changed that.  Now, unless your willing to search people and otherwise infringe on their liberties you aren't considered worthy by the perpetrators of injustice to play their game.

Vested Interests

Why is the establishment so well entrenched here?  Vested interest.  Without the war on drugs there would be vast unemployment.  For example, the Internet provides far better medical information than doctors.  If you could do you own research and prescribe your own remedy think of how many people would become unemployed.  First there's the doctors.  Now consider the vast number of police (soldiers) added for the war on drugs and secondarily the lawyers, prosecutors, judges, customs, prison builders, prison guards, social workers, and even dogs. 

The entrenchment of this war employs so many that just one simple change of law would radically debilitate the US economy as we know it. 

Therefore it is first necessary to address the welfare/workfare safety net that government can only provide similar to what parents provide for their children.  Once that is accomplished it's not so hard to determine how we could make good use of a million unemployed people (ie: drug dealers, cops, lawyers, doctors, etc.).

Lets consider more scapegoats opposed by the "Establishment" and who composes that "Establishment":

Drugs - Cops, Lawyers, Doctors, Judges, Prisons, Customs, etc.

Guns - Cops, Criminals

Speech - Existing power base, those fearing change or truth

Blacks/minorities - white power holders

Women - male power holders

Abortion - Religious institutions and fundamental fearful

Homosexuals - Religious institutions and fundamental fearful

Jews - Religious institutions and fundamental fearful

Motorcycle Helmets - Helmet manufacturers, anti-motorcycle people, religious institutions and those who want sovereignty over other's bodies. 

Motorcycle tires for dual-use - Tire manufacturers, DOT, cops, courts, etc.

Seat-belts and Airbags - Auto makers, Insurance companies, cops, courts, etc.

Pornography - Porn companies (to keep profitability) and religious fundamentalists

This level of establishment works very hard to reinforce it's position.  They've even used government money for advertising their position (maximum corruption).  No government or GAO data is available on how much money has been spent on advertising (no-wonder), but we've all seen the advertisements.  Remember these commercials?

Eat your meat (Dept of Agriculture)

Drink your milk - with the milk mustaches (Dept of Agriculture)

Just say no - splattering an egg a la brain - in several forms

I Love NY, and many localities advertising jobs they don't have

Condoms (1994

Don't Drink -n- Drive we've got checkpoints (your papers please)

Advertising in schools - widespread corporate sponsoring, etc. (

Broome County, It works... (local mid state NY to combat population decline and protect political seats in congress)

Anti-smoking - locally, state, and federally sponsored "everybody quits someday" -- makes me want one just to preserve my freedom to have one.

Foreign countries deliver large sums of money to Political Action Comities in order to manipulate our political process.  There's been some murmuring in the media about  "China-Gate".  That's a scandal brewing about foreign PAC influence over US elections.  Part of their objectives are similar to the objectives of tobacco companies.  For example, buy stimulating more rebellion to drug laws they can ship more opium and other drugs into the USA for large profits.  Note that opium has been legal there forever and the people harvest it for export only.  They (China, & Middle - Far East countries) don't seem to have anyone interested in it there.

Some foreign governments like China also have interests in seeing us weakened because we are stimulating dissent in their country.  To them our greatest stealthiest weapons are the telephone, fax machine, and the Internet. They (China's government not their people) see us as an enemy and drugs are their stealthiest weapon.  Communist countries have relied more heavily on propaganda than our system has.  Still, talking to people who hold differing views strongly even though they lack knowledge to back up what they say, it is a chilling idea how effective their tactics can be.

Major Governmental Issues

"Remember that prosperity can be only for the free, and that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it." -- Pericles

"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH", and "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell, 1984.

"In America, the present is controlled by reducing the attention span. The invention of television wasn't enough by itself." -- 

"As a result of the [Civil] war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow.  The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.  I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." -- Abraham Lincoln (

The Internet is reversing the trend of prejudice and ignorance.  Therefore it's coming under attach by News, Radio, and Evangelists (as manipulated by money power) in the name of protecting children.  Children can be kept off the Internet if protecting them is your objective.  Thus don't be fooled. A teenage girl can connect with an older man at the mall much faster than on the Internet (where people are usually far away geographically).  The Internet is a beautiful environment for an involved parent to teach children about the REAL WORLD.  In the USA even hate speech is valued for it's existence. I'll even quote the Unibomber later.

Research on governmental issues via the Internet allows us to control our own present moment.  It also allows us to talk with authority when educating our parents.  They do remember the real past better than someone else's (even a TV authority) distortion of it.  Truth in history favors truth in the present and thus better more growthful control of the future.  For this reason I've put heavy links/references throughout this book.  This demonstrates the power on the Internet applied to a purpose such as mine.  My references are much easier to verify and evaluate for yourself than common bibliographies.  Chances are that you either have a computer or a friend with a computer closer to home than a library or book store, and even libraries have Internet terminals now.  There's more information on the Internet than conventional libraries can hold.  This includes most great books that are over 20 years old and thus no-longer have copyright protection. 

On a fundamental level, the volume of laws and regulation has reached its' peak.  Since laws are binary in nature they have unfairness built in.  Our challenge for the near future is to repeal bad laws and to reform laws that we still need so that they work constructively instead of destructively.  When we perceive a problem we need to start asking ourselves what can we do to encourage good performance rather than to prohibit what we hate.

"It's better to work for what you love than against what you hate" -- Wayne Dyer (work for love = satisfaction, work against hate = frustration)

Crime And Punishment

Most of the existing laws were originally designed to protect us from perceived danger.  For example, murder laws protect us from killers.  However, any law with a mandatory minimum becomes binary and therefore unjust to somebody.  When juries perceive laws as unjust they become more resistant to convicting people. In the Murder example, consider an abused woman who finally kills her husband.  It's low-scale self-defense but not clear/present danger.  Without putting the sentencing selection in the hands of the jury, juries are faced with the choice to either convict or acquit without knowing the consequence.  Sometimes people who are technically guilty but shouldn't be "punished" go to jail for long sentences.  Other times, guilty murders walk for the juries fear of being to harsh with a reasonable doubt.  That's why Jack Kovorkien (the mercy-killing doctor) is still free.  Most of us have at least a relative who had to have a pet "put to sleep". 

We'd be seeing more jury acquittals of drug crimes, but the police often confiscate the financial resources of defendants, claiming they were earned via drug sales (eliminating fair trials).  With the evidence being so clear and the stakes so high defendants "cop a plea".  Lawyers are prohibited by the bar association (licensing them to practice) from contradicting the judges instructions by telling the jury of it's right/responsibility to vote their conscience regardless of the law involved.  If you think drug laws should be repealed you have an obligation to your country to acquit regardless of the evidence (  It's a right/responsibility you need to know in advance just like your right to remain silent (5th amendment and Miranda).

Oligarchy - Fair Trial

Oligarchy is government preferential to the rich.  The USA has a problem with this.  Accusations can and do lead to imprisonment of innocent people who cannot afford a good enough legal defense to prove their innocence.  If they do win their case they may be left financially devastated.

To reduce the disadvantage and financial cost of innocent people accused of crimes I strongly suggest that the public defender's office be improved so that the middle class also benefits.  I also strongly suggest that the public defender's available budget be at least equal to twice the prosecutor's budget as a baseline.  Otherwise, we will have a continued perception of justice for the rich and not the poor.

In civil litigation, the tables can be turned but are often abused.  For this reason I strongly suggest that the defendant's legal costs become an automatic counter suit.  There is one particular religious group by L. R. someone who I won't name who vehemently attach anyone who speaks or writes against them with numerous lawsuits.  Their tactic directly assaults free speech of people who have been hurt by them.  Forcing them to pay for lost lawsuits would solve part of the problem.  For those without enough financial backing to oppose a lawsuit brought by someone with deeper pockets I suggest the public defender's role again be increased to double the plaintiff's budget.

Right now jails are filled with people who had to plea-bargain life to a long sentence because they couldn't afford a good defense.  Maybe we could start by providing public defenders with budgets equal to prosecutor budgets and making them available to everyone, not just the poor.  According to the US Dept of Justice,  "Ninety-two percent of convictions occurring within 1 year of arrest were obtained through a guilty plea. About 5 in 6 guilty pleas were to a felony." " About two-thirds of defendants were charged with a nonviolent felony. The most frequently charged nonviolent offenses were drug trafficking (14.6%), other drug offenses (20%), theft (11.2%), and burglary (8.8%)."  Notice the propaganda mechanism again split the drug content, which was 24.6% total.

In the first month of 1999 CNN reported that 16 of the 30 scheduled executions were stopped because of exculpatory evidence which led to the release of the 16 of the 30 people.   That means that maybe the prisoners aren't as guilty as we think.  Did they get fair trials or plea bargains?

NCPA ( reported that in Wisconsin, "Plea bargaining cut maximum prison exposure by an average of about 42 percent, or 12.4 years per defendant." "In fact, a majority received sentences that were less than half of the maximum possible".  How do you equate life to a number of years?

One policy that is particularly dangerous to freedoms is to "charge the highest possible charge and let the prosecutor and defendant plea-bargain it out".  Charging a felony for a minor offense takes away a person's right to a fair and speedy trial.  A felony means the defendant must spend thousands on defense and delay the trial in order to effect a plea bargain or jury trial.  A similar hostile removal of defendants rights is charging them with as many possible charges as the police can construe to fit the crime.  The reality feared by most defendants in this system is that when a defendant runs out of money before trial is over conviction becomes probable.  Public defenders don't provide good case strategies either.  Thus the poor feel no other choice than to plea bargain in order to be free again someday.

Other disparities are huge too.  For example, drug crimes carry higher penalties than rape, assault, and often even murder.   Whatever happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?  Accused people are usually taken for "perp-walks" so the media can get their picture for TV.

Unfair Prosecution

"Before you accuse me, take a look at your self" -- Eric Claptin.

"381 homicide convictions have been reversed in the past 5 years."  -- MSNBC "Judge&Jury" on the DuPage 7 corruption case which framed James Dugan with the death penalty (reported 3/12/1999).

Bill Clinton and Ken Star demonstrated a trail of people who were destroyed by harsh accusations and prosecution tactics.  Thus Bill Clinton's errors may actually work in favor of our freedom by exposing this widespread problem (even if you don't like him).  Ken Star and others made multiple victims by:

Making parents testify against their children.  (Monica Lewinski's Mother, Susan McDougle's family, etc.  67 people CNN reported)

Using leverage and intimidation to extract desired testimony.  Susan McDougle said this was done to her brothers and was why she refused to testify even at the cost of 2.5 years in jail.

Julie Hyatt Steel is being tried for perjury after she "came clean" on TV She said that she made 2 mistakes.  First trusting Kathleen Willey who she said asked her to lie in order to back up her story.  Then Lying to help a perceived friend.  She retracted her affidavit on national TV while acknowledging it could get her jail time.

Charging Webster Hubble with 15 felony counts of tax evasion in an effort to get him to implicate Bill Clinton.  If he's guilty he should have been charged locally and not by a special prosecutor.  But since he offered hope in getting somebody (the president) he was attached.  By allowing the special prosecutor to charge others with crimes he was given the power to intimidate and leverage the dirtiest of typical police tactics portrayed on TV.

Threats of imprisonment.  Monica was threatened by 27 years.  Her immunity agreement prohibits her from her free speech regarding what was done to her.  Does anyone really think she's a danger to the rest of us for lying about sex?  Otherwise prison is inappropriate.  The law that prescribes that "punishment" must be reformed.

Sidney Blumenthal (an aide) faces perjury charges for testifying in conflict with a reporters claim that he told the press Monica was a stalker.  (It seemed immaterial, and he might have simply forgot.)

Leaking to the press. 

Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony was made public, as well as many leaks from the prosecutor. That's crewel and unusual punishment if I ever saw it (illegal too).

Asking unfair questions - did you have sex with... That's private.

Making a siting president a defendant in a law-suit.  It's clear now why it interfered with the executive functioning via just the leaks alone.

Traumatizing immediate family - Hillary Clinton had to testify about Whitewater. 

Inducing huge legal bills.  CNN-HNN reported $95M legal costs for people subpoenaed by Star. Everyone involved has huge bills, most are way beyond their ability to pay.  A few have written books and been on TV in order to pay their lawyers.

Sadly, this form of prosecution does happen to others.  It seems that the character of the individual prosecutor is the primary factor in the private sector.

Mean Justice : A Small Town's Terror, a Prosecutor's Power, a Betrayal of Innocence by Edward Humes is a new book documenting this problem.  Here's the book review from

Mean Justice makes other tales on the miscarriage justice look like pleasant little fairy tales. In the legal world crafted by the founders of the Constitution, a series of checks and balances exist to ensure that innocent people don't go jail. The crater-size cracks in the criminal justice system today, however; are disturbingly clear in this page-turner by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Humes (No Matter How Loud I Shout, 1996; Mississippi Mud, 1994; etc.). Patrick Dunn is a retired school principal whose wife, Sandy, mysteriously disappears during one of her regular predawn walks. Although reports her missing, he becomes the prime suspect -- indeed, the only suspect -- based almost solely on a gut feeling by one of his closest friends, a younger woman who as an appointed official in Bakersfield, Calif., has the clout and stick-to-it-iveness to push the local police district attorney’s office to go after Dunn. Not that they need much prodding. As Humes so carefully chronicles, this is a suburban town that already has a well-documented history of convicting innocent people and, worst of all, making these crimes stick for years. Bakersfield, after all, was one of America’s prosecutorial hot spots in seeking out supposed child molestation rings in the 1980s. Humes displays his award-winning style here as he lays out Dunn's sad tale -- he is ultimately convicted with virtually no evidence pointing to him as killer -- and the background that so chillingly puts Dunn's story into perspective. distressing is Humes's research indicating that cases such as Dunn's are occurring with increasing frequency. Dunn, meanwhile, remains in jail.

Something must be done to rain in unfair prosecution.  I can't think of anything more effective than giving an equal or bigger budget to the defense.  That way only valid and provable cases would be worth the trouble.  

I suggest a constitutional amendment protecting immediate family and long term friends (2+ years) from being compelled to testify.  In addition, the strength of the compelling must be curtailed.  If someone won't rat on a friend that's honorable and treating them like a criminal for it seems wrong.  Also, interfering with friendships takes away a person's support network which is necessary for good mental health and thus good (legal) behavior.  Braking friend and family bonds deepens social decay more than drug crimes (severely violent crimes may be different).

We must also recognize that these tactics which destroy people also take away their rights to sew the state because they get charged with crimes.  By the time they plea-bargain they must sign away their right to appeal (and sew).  Prosecutors are much more careful with witnesses who have better means of defense such as deep pockets.

Child abuse laws are particularly dangerous. According to

There are thousands of child-abuse allegations made every day in the United States. Close to ninety percent of them are proven to be false. No one knows how many of the remaining accusations are false. No reasonable person wants to see even one child abused, physically or sexually, but it is all too easy for someone to make false accusations, and in far too many cases the accused is guilty until proven innocent, not allowed to face his/her accusers, and deprived of the basic rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Obviously child abuse is serious.  However, a false accusation of child abuse is even worse.  It makes victims out of the child and parents.

I suggest that laws against false accusations be strengthened to hold an equal penalty to the crime which gets accused.  False accusations are numerous in cases of rape, abuse, and domestic violence.


I'm surprised we don't regard arrest and imprisonment with the same fear and outrage that we attach to rape.  Consider that rape is a physical captivity and invasion that lasts a finite period of time.  So is arrest / imprisonment. However, which lasts longer?  Also, which one leaves a more permanent scar?  Note that most job applications ask if you've ever been convicted of a crime. Who asks if you've ever been raped?

In cases where someone presents a physical threat to the rest of society Jail seems appropriate as a protection of society.  However, we must recognize its dangers.  They don't call it "CRIME SCHOOL" for nothing.

Once we do determine someone is guilty of a "crime" we must consider appropriate remedies rather than just punishment via prison.  For example, who is protected by jailing a drug addict?  Drug treatment and drug availability offer great hope.  These remedies have even been proven in other countries such as England and Holland.


Guns are an easy scapegoat for violence, but not a valid one.  Those who favor gun control don't understand the history of our country or the importance of guns to our freedom.  They also must not understand the facts that guns reduce crime. 

Here's some history on the 2nd amendment (passed in 1791). Reference (an NRA site debunking gun control fables):

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

America's statesmen defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee, before ratification of the Constitution the author of the most influential writings advocating a Bill of Rights, wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. . . ." Making the same point, Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large."7 And George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia obligated to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied males of age. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Miller (1939), "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the [Constitutional] Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States," the other part remaining all other able-bodied males of age, plus some other males and females. The "well regulated militia" remains as before, the citizenry.

And laws preventing gun ownership increase crime! (same reference):

Survey research by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, of Florida State University, has shown that firearms are used for protection against criminals as many as 2.5 million times annually. This is three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with firearms annually.

Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's homicide rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders, and all firearm murders, in the city were committed with handguns.

Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and homicides with handguns continued to rise. Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982 and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related homicides doubled.

California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989, and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual homicide rate has averaged 34% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet its homicide rate is 46% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

The overall homicide rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. is 23% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, NYC's violent crime and murder rates were among the highest of U.S. cities.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms, nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national homicide rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years after that.

States upon whom the Brady Act's waiting period was imposed had worse violent crime trends than other states. Other failures of the federal waiting period law are noted in the fable "It is because of the Brady Act's five-day waiting period and the "assault weapons" law that crime has decreased," which follows.

Anti-gun groups and the Clinton-Gore Administration have tried to credit those two laws and, thus, themselves, with the decrease. However, violent crime began declining nationally during 1992,1 and the Brady Act didn't take effect until Feb. 28, 1994, the "assault weapons" law until Sept. 13, 1994.

Thirty-one states now have right-to-carry laws. Half the U.S. population, including 60% of handgun owners, live in right-to-carry states. Twenty-two states have adopted right-to-carry in the last decade, in the last two years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more violence. Typical of this sort of propaganda, Florida State Rep. Michael Friedman said, "We'll have calamity and carnage, the body count will go up and we'll see more and more people trying to act like supercops." Similarly, Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro said, "This could set us back 100 years to the time of the wild west." But since Florida adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its homicide rate has decreased 40%, while nationwide the homicide rate has [only] decreased 21%.

Michael Rivero wrote Wed, 3 Mar 1999, YET MORE PROOF - GUN BANS INCREASE CRIME to the newsgroup alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater.  Included statistics were [TSRA Feb 3 1999 Keith Tidwell]:

In just one year after the government ban went into effect, costing the citizens of Australia their rights [,and] the government more the 500-million dollars, a dramatic increase in criminal activity has occurred, including a whopping 44% increase in armed robberies.

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%

Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

Sure guns in the wrong hands are dangerous.  However, we must be careful that the gun control lobbies don't go too far targeting certain types of guns and infringing on gun ownership or purchases.  We have a wide range of victimless gun-crimes labeled as felonies therefore taking away the rights of these people to defend themselves both physically and legally (such as carrying a concealed weapon, sawing off a shotgun, etc).

Concealed gun laws are even more messed up.  Did you know that putting your gun into your coat pocket is a felony (in states without a "right to carry")?  "Carrying a Concealed Weapon" can be and often is applied to such simple things as pocketknives.  I would rather that people's weapons be concealed.  I feel safer knowing a storeowner or motorist might have a gun under his coat because there are far more "good Samaritans" than criminals.

Pushing for a "right to carry" is appropriate for all states.  It's proven to reduce crime more than any other single measure ever invented.  Thank you Texas for leading the way.


"When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions." -- President Theodore Roosevelt

It seems we've come a long way since then, even allowing the Unibomber's  (anarchist) manifesto ( to be printed in USA Today (granted it was an effort to catch him).

Lucky for us, "The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." -- John Gilmore.  We've still got a ways to go.  "And miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep" -- Robert Frost, Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening (

To preserve our free speech it's important that we recognize that the existing power base is not in favor of free speech unless it suits their purposes.  That includes our government, CNN, and most other mass media outlets that are controlled by big money.  The Internet is a direct assault on that limitation of old. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, reports the following about recent legal developments over the internet:

President Clinton signed into law the Child Online Protection Act (COPA, also known as "CDA II"), which was passed by Congress as part of its mammoth Obmnibus Spending Bill and was scheduled to become effective by the end of November 1998.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have joined together to file a lawsuit (Oct. 22, 1998) on behalf of a diverse group of online speakers, including journalists, artists, booksellers and gay and lesbian groups, that fear prosecution under the new law.

We were granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Nov. 20, 1998, followed by a preliminary injunction (like a TRO but not time-limited) on Feb. 1, 1999, both barring enforcement of COPA for the time being. The court's Feb. 1 ruling held that the ACLU/EFF/EPIC plaintiffs are considered "likely to succeed on the merits" in the final ruling.

Ironically, the Administration's own position on the bill (as per a recent Justice Department memorandum to Congress) is that the legislation is unconstitutional, yet Justice has been called on to attempt to defend COPA in court.

The new law would make it a federal crime to "knowingly" communicate "for commercial purposes" material considered "harmful to minors." Penalties include fines of up to $50,000 for each day of violation, and up to six months in prison.

Although proponents claim that COPA applies only to commercial pornographers, the law will effectively ban a wide range of protected expression that is provided for free on the web by organizations and other entities who also happen to be communicating on the Web for "commercial purposes". One example might be a sexually transmitted disease prevention site whose material could be considered "harmful to minors" by very conservative jurisdiction, and who also happen to sell t-shirts or buttons.

In other news, a federal district court has ordered the Loudoun County (VA) public library to stop content-filtering adult access to the Internet in the library, on constitutional grounds. This spells good news for free speech and bad news for the McCain and Istook bills which were expected to make a comeback in 1999. Both bills would have mandated that all fedeally-funded libraries in the US install filtering software.

Freedom of speech is a good thing.  It's our primary defense against infringement on other freedoms.  We hear news stories of abuses of this power.  However, those stories are over-reported compared to the responsible behavior of the masses.

The power to broadcast your ideas to the world can carry heavy consequences.  Authors quickly learn to consider that before publishing their work on such world-wide media.  For example, publishing a picture of your girlfriend nude can hurt that person for life and open you up to a lawsuit. Once such pictures are published they may never be stopped.  That's because there are so many people out there who collect images and re-publish public domain images on pay sites.  They also re-publish public domain images as advertisements to their pay sites out in the free areas.  This again is both good and bad.  It reduces the profit of the big perversion but also perpetuates injustice felt by those who did nothing to deserve it. 

In the long run the Internet will destroy the porn industry because the naked human body image is freely available.  Like France has de-sensitized to it because nudity is on TV there. The human body is an animal body.  We covered it from fear.  Now that so many are uncovering and publishing, those fears will diminish.  So the religious question that goes along with this is will it lead to further objectification and perversion?  The answer is probably not.  Just like porno-movies or magazines.  After a while the thrill is gone and the cost is too high. Well without the cost the thrill really goes away. 

The real danger to the USA is the money power using fears to scare people into giving up their freedoms, as Lincoln said.  What action do you take during annoying commercials and biased news reports?  Do you seek the truth and tell it to your associates?  Our freedom depends on it.  If Lincoln were still here he'd need a fresh pair of "depends" every time he saw a news report. 

My parents always said "believe almost nothing you hear and only 1/2 what you read".  Seems now that was very sound advice.

Mass Media

News papers, TV, and Radio were directly threatened by the Internet.  There is more news with greater detail available on the Internet.  You can find TV shows, radio shows, and music on the Internet too.  The growth trend on the Internet indicates that it won't take too long for these services to catch up with the mainstream media for general news delivery.  Thus they are either scared or looking for on-line ways to get in front of the trend.  CNBC, NY Times, USA Today all have pretty good on-line news.  Their web sites are far more informative than their newspapers because you can do subject searches on their news archives.  On line they make money by selling banner advertising.  Thus they are still successful being a good source for doing research. 

One thing we must not succumb to is fear inducing tactics we hear on the media.  For example, young girls meeting old men on the Internet.  Well yea that wouldn't be happening without the Internet.  However blaming the Internet for this occurrence is stupid.  It went on years before there was an Internet.  Now with the Internet it's possible for police to monitor and stop people from this sort of activity.  That's why we're hearing about it.  We all know that such relationships form much more frequently in other more direct ways.  So recognize that those who are threatened by the Internet are scapegoating it. And by those threatened I don't mean families, but rather the big money and social control interests that the Internet is hurting.  If we had statistics that showed a majority of such crime came from the Internet then the case would be more understandable.  But even if it were, what about holding the parents to their responsibility for their own children?

The press and TV news suffer from the short attention span of their market.  They are also subject to law suits and at the mercy of advertising agencies.  The ownership of the media is another influence.  This means that the US government, advertisers, and the owners of the networks can control the most of the content of their programming.  If you want the truth you'll have to dig it up for yourself.  Only now with the Internet you can do it while you watch the TV and without going to a library to look at microfilm.

What's still good about TV is similar to what's still good about radio.  Radio does a little light news as a form of entertainment.  TV news is becoming more tabloid/entertainment oriented too.  With the Internet making better information available than ever before, those changes are tolerable.  Why?  It has more to do with understanding the momentary interest of the population than fact-finding.  News is getting stronger and stronger at reporting polls.  Then again, provides 100s of polls for you to peruse at your leisure. It also demonstrates how polls force you into a few categories that exclude the truth. 

CNN and other news networks aren't exposing government corruption or other deep subjects requiring a long attention span to cover.  However, they are following the Internet themselves and adopting it's use into their programming.  When something becomes news on the Internet then they pickup on it provided it doesn't hurt their own business interest.  Radio has been following news papers this way for years.  The difference is that very few people claim the radio to be their primary source of news.


Encryption technology allows secure communication of information over unsecured communication channels such as the Internet.  Since before the Internet there has been a raging battle over the use of this technology.  Encryption algorithms that are unbreakable have been printed on T-shirts with the caption "Export Violation". of the Organization GST Whole Earth Networks @ San Luis Obispo, CA, U reports the following:

In 1994 Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, which essentially told the telecommunications industry that as its technology advanced, it could not impede wiretap surveillance necessary for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations. But because of the bill's wording, the FBI and the FCC have been interpreting the law as permission to expand wiretap capability.

In October of last year, the FCC interpreted the law to mean that all cell phone and other wireless telephone companies are required to track the location of their customers from the time the call was initiated until the time it was terminated, all by locating the cell site the person was near at each end of the call. The result is that the location of every citizen who uses a cell phone can be tracked and logged by the telephone companies and reported to the FBI upon request. The same would go for Internet providers as well. ISPs would have to provide the FBI access to customer's computer files and email upon request.

Then there's the age-old question of who should keep the keys to citizens' encryption codes, the citizens themselves or federal law enforcement. Through various proposals, beginning in 1993 with the Clipper Chip, the Clinton Administration, along with FBI Director Louis Freeh, have been fighting for the keys that hold secret, the electronic communications of American citizens.

Encryption technology is the most solid guarantee of freedom of speech.  However, allowing a back-door for the government exposes everybody to hackers.  Businesses are wising up to this because they have lost large sums of money because of insecure email.  PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) has is a common business application, especially in defense companies.  It's still an export violation to send it over the internet to someone outside the USA.  Yet it has already been smuggled and is gaining popularity around the world.

Porn companies have also pioneered encryption technology for use accepting credit card payments.  Customers use a "Secure Sockets Layer" to communicate their payment.  Then they are given a key for their browser.  When their time is expired their key becomes disabled.

Science Censorship

Free speech is severely lacking in the scientific community.  If you have a security clearance you can be fired for saying anything the government or your employer disagree with.  In addition, homosexual and extramarital activity is considered a security risk (meaning clearance is revoked which is grounds for being fired).  Say "Yea UFOs exist, most are probably ours" and you can be jailed for speculating the truth or something possibly close to it (espionage carries the death penalty).

Lately we've been hearing about cold fusion again., and document independent research outside the established scientific community.  The opposition is very strong too.  The establish power systems generate huge revenue for a significant part of the world population, including most of the Middle East. Cold fusion offers the possibility that each person can generate more power from a beer-can than the biggest present-day power plants.  The governments of the world are opposed to that for obvious security reasons.

The censorship of real scientific exploration is so widespread that it's been named the "Galileo Effect". defines the Galileo Effect:

"persecution and censorship of non-majority views in spite of non-trivial supporting data; intense peer pressure to "toe the line"; choosing the underlying paradigm for non-scientific reasons such as funding and philosophy; and the resultant dishonesty and unprofessionalsim required to defend that paradigm, at the cost of scientific progress."

Some scientific highlights of the Galileo Effect (same reference):

"The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection. Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system."  (and many more challenges to Darwinism)

Cosmology & Physics: Whodunits: "Commonsense would suggest that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology..." - Fred Hoyle

Forbidden Archeology The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson:

The auriferous gravels of Table Mountain, dated from 33.2 to 55 million years old.

The stratigraphy at Table Mountain consists of a latite cap dated to 9 million years, andesitic tuffs, breccias, and sediments going back to 21.1 million years, rhyolite tuffs as old as 33.2 million years, and prevolcanic auriferous gravels, some as ancient as 55.0 million years.

Several years ago, H. Arp, a noted American astronomer, moved to Europe to continue his research because, in part, of the hostility of American astronomers to his discoveries. The problem was (and still is) that Arp found galaxies that seem to be physically interacting and, therefore, at the same distance from earth, but yet have radically different or "discordant" redshifts. Since redshifts are supposed to be a measure of distance from the earth, an anomaly comes into focus. This anomaly; that is, the credibility of the redshift distance scale, challenges the ideas of an expanding universe and the Big Bang itself.

(Henbest, Nigel; "Galaxies Form 'Megawalls' across Space," New Scientist, p. 37, March 19, 1990.): "The universe is crossed by at least 13 vast 'walls' of galaxies, separated by about 420 million light years, according to a team of British and American researchers. The walls seem to be spaced in a very regular way that current theories of the origin of the universe cannot explain."

Peter Duesberg has been outcast by the medical establishment for challenging the HIV model for AIDS.  Peter Duesberg has published his dissenting view via the Internet at

AIDS not infectious, but caused by recreational and anti-HIV drugs

Duesberg's official site, containing his written works on the subject, as well as other scientists that support his views, such as Kary B. Mullis, and Professor Walter Gilbert - both Nobel prize winners (Kary Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction technique, for detecting DNA, which is used to search for fragments of HIV in AIDS patient. Walter Gilbert, professor in molecular biology, won the 1980 Nobel prize in chemistry.)

To silence Duesberg the U.S. government officials even tried to bribe him.  The letter he received from the Dept of Health and Human Services threatens him with NIH public affairs:

"This obviously has the potential to raise a lot of controversy (if this isn't the virus, how do we know the blood supply is safe? How do we know anything about transmission? How could you all be so stupid and why should we ever believe you again?) and we need to be prepared to respond. I have already asked NIH public affairs to start digging into this."

Duesberg is a well-accomplished researcher who takes a scientific approach to the study of diseases.  He knows what he is talking about:

He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health (see his biographic sketch).

Duesberg is not alone. John Lauritsen reports "After an arduous three-month battle with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I have finally obtained documents which describe in detail many acts of fraud committed in the conduct of the Phase II AZT Trials. It was on the basis of the Phase II Trials that AZT was approved for marketing by the FDA in 1987."

As a scientist myself I can confirm the hypocrisy of science in the business world.  Science education and business encourage scientists to blind themselves in the name of business.  Scientists must speak the party line or be fired.  Meanwhile, scientific research is flatly discouraged as hoopla.  Experts are exalted as having the most knowledge and being the most valuable to the company.  This is a complete fallacy as stated plainly in Murphy's Laws:

"Expert - yee who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything there is to know about nothing at all."

Music and Art

I need to write a song about a life where computers and robots do all my family farming and wage earning.  Then what will I do? 

Music is a valuable communication tool.  It's also a brain exercise.  Learn to play an instrument and you won't be disappointed.  Learn to "play by ear" and you'll forever enjoy it.  I began guitar in 1985.  14 years later I'm surprised by my improved ability to "hear" the words in songs, especially songs that used to be incomprehensible.

Because of the power of music, it's been a primary target for censorship and control of the establishment.  If you don't believe this simple assertion then I suggest you pay attention to the censorship that goes on with the airwaves.  We're told which songs are popular and what we should like.  Recording contracts are controlled by big money.  Also, notice that the musicians no longer talk about politics.  For example, in 1995 Aerosmith retracted their political statements in Rolling Stone magazine.

Tom Petti's song You don't know what it's like was redone to change a line from "lets smoke another joint" to "let's hit another joint" and another version had "let's smoke another {*gibberish sound*}".  Big money radio wouldn't play anything that had the appearance of supporting marijuana.  How hypocritical while the play the beer company advertisements. 

The main point here is that if big money controls the musical creativity of Tom Petti and Aerosmith then you can bet there's heavy censorship going on.  The only way to get your message out will be directly.  Luckily technology will again help.  Publish songs on the Internet (MP3 format), gain a following and you might get lucky.  Otherwise it's who you know and how much money you got.

DCP03753aA lesson reaffirmed by creating this book came from my first attempt at the cover image (I painted it in 16"x20" color).  I thought of images for "live free",  "Die" and the "USA".  What I ended up with seemed very expressive of my message at first.  Then a friend said it looked like "a white supremacist advocating violence, and rebellion while wrapping himself in the flag", and "I wouldn't touch a book like that".

After that was said I got that point. I mention it here because it's a good example that you don't own your creations after someone else applies their own meaning.   Here's the image.  What meaning would you apply? 

Fear of your interpretation is the most powerful form of all censorship.  Since I fear people would jump to the wrong conclusion I've decided to try something else.  It could be that people would get the same message I intended and buy it for that reason.  It could also be highly controversial and therefore sell to the supremacists who might be disappointed with it's content.  More likely it would stand in the way of getting published because the publishers would fear public reaction to it.

With careful consideration of the self-censoring concept and the reality of the meanings others would apply, I figured it would lead to a dismissal of the whole book by many people and therefore be counter-productive.  But here it's worth mentioning!  The hanging man seemed to overpower the rest of the message in the picture (and therefore overpowered my intended meaning).  I used the computer to change it for the book.  The original is still intact but confined to my house where I have the opportunity to explain it rather than allow anyone to assign a harmful meaning never intended.

I've noticed that we don't consider the author's intentions very often when we assign a meaning to a song or a picture.  That's OK as long as we don't miss-judge the author for a meaning that was never intended.  The media does that quite frequently (recently to shock-jock the Geese-Man).  Since I'm writing this for mass appeal I'm more interested in the interpretations of others than my own original intended meanings anyway.  That level of self-censorship is part of the creative process.

Environmental Preservation

Environmental laws need forward thinking. For this reason I suggest we use tax incentives for good behavior rather than punishment to enforce unjust or non-violent laws.

Urban sprawl is a growing problem.  Property tax is a good reverse pressure to such sprawl.  In New Hampshire there is no sales tax or income tax.  There is rather high property tax.  This has helped preserve the natural beauty of the state.  Small towns are still quaint and suburbs are less pervasive.

Tax codes are good solutions to environmental issues in general.  Here are a few more.

Increased Tax on gas, oil, etc.  These taxes would encourage better use of power such as trains instead of trucks.  Note that having a fewer number of bigger power plants is a good way to control their pollution and efficiency.  Train diesels do not omit the particulate pollution that trucks do because the exhaust is "scrubbed".  Tax can also encourage better cars and alternate power sources more compatible with the environment.  For example, the money from gas tax can be used to reduce the cost of Electric Vehicles and funding of research on hydrogen and other non-polluting fuel.

Tax on harmful chemicals - especially refrigerants.  I would like to see a tax on a car with an air conditioner with Freon to double the price of the car.  The ozone depletion is a big problem.  It should carry a big tax.  Otherwise we won't need cars for very long.  Some people either don't know or don't care about what's at stake.  A Freon tax would change that situation.  The proceeds could be channeled to research for a non-harmful replacement technology.

With all this talk of taxation we don't want to increase the "tax-burden".  Proceeds based on encouraging appropriate change should be channeled into corresponding research or consumer pricing adjustment.  For example, funding for Electric Vehicles, solar vehicles.  Wind, fusion, water, and solar generation will also be highly valuable, especially if cars become primarily electric.

Population and Food

World population is quickly approaching 6 billion.  Farming technology has also improved.  However, the population growth rate for the next 20 years far exceeds all predictions of our ability to manufacture more food.  That's got to change.  We've either got to reduce reproduction rates further, develop sustainable methods to produce more food, starve the (foreign) poor (result of continued ignorance), or have widespread global disaster (war, disease, flood, quake, etc.) induced population reductions.

We should also recognize that life expectancies are dramatically increasing and expected to continue doing so.  That's the primary reason for such an uncontrollable population growth. 

One simple change expected from an increasing demand is that the value of viable farmland will increase and so will the price of food.  Food that consumes more land will become more expensive.  Thus meat will eventually become extremely expensive. 

Due to government subsidies the US consumers are somewhat ignorant about the real cost differences.  That's a serious problem because it removes the financial incentive to good environmental eating behavior.

Subsidies aren't completely wrong for food production since the strength of the food supply is a security issue. However, subsidies must become more responsible.  Allowing grazing for meat production on public land is theft of the land that belongs to all of us.  It is also the most destructive form of farming (next chapter).

Technology is drastically affecting the "family farmer".  Some farming research includes using Global Positioning System satellites to control the path of a tractor through a field and even to/from the barn.  Thus the farmer doesn't even have to be there for harvest.  It can become automatic all the way to the door-step as ordered via the Internet. 

Supporting the family farmer is basically a workfare idea.  Technology is a more cost effective way to assure the food supply.  However, an electromagnetic pulse or satellite destruction could disable such a system.  Thus farmer workfare isn't all bad either. 

Meat vs Vegetables

Meat subsidies must stop.  Just like there is a pro-life lobby that equates abortion with murder there is a growing vegetarian lobby that equates meat with murder.  Even more pressing than that is the environmental destruction caused by meat farming.

Land and water consumption are the most astonishing environmental impacts of meat production.  According to 10 Acres of land can feed:

60 people by growing Soy

24 people by growing Wheat

10 people by growing Corn

2 people by growing Cows

There are many other problems with meat production.  A very long list of the environmental impacts of meat production is posted at  Some highlights are:

Tropical rainforests are being destroyed in part to provide cheap beef for export to other countries, including the U.S.

2,500 gallons of water is needed to produce 1 pound of meat, enough water to maintain a typical household for an entire month

55 square feet for each burger

If it weren't for subsidies some of these costs (especially land consumption) would be visible to consumers and lead to better behavior.  Meat is heavily subsidized in the USA to reduce it's cost on the market.  However, the statistics are difficult to extract because they don't take the form of dollars for beef.  Rather, meat and dairy receive free government help in various untraceable forms.

One form of buried subsidy is allowing the use of state and federal land for grazing and paying subsidies for corn, oats and other "feed" grain used to feed cattle.  To an environmentalist this is particularly offensive because of the destructive nature of cattle grazing.  We've all seen the national advertising telling consumers that meat and dairy are good for them.  Commercials with milk mustaches and slogans like "eat your meat" or "drink your milk".   This form of subsidy is buried for the obvious reason that it's political and therefore highly illegal.

The reality is that meat and dairy are like alcohol in that small amounts are good but too much makes it harmful.  The health risk is severe, including the number 1 cause of death in the USA (Heart Disease).  Other disease risks include mad cow, salmonella, E. coli, and the list goes on.   Cow manure used for fertilizer also dramatically increases insect populations (flies and mosquitoes) while polluting rural water resources (streams, ponds, and rivers with E. coli).

Farm subsidizes total over $5B per year according to the US Dept of Agriculture and  Of that over $1.2B was spent to subsidize corn (the primary feed for cattle).  And an interesting side note is that $25M went to tobacco.  Another $7.2B is spent by states, but no breakdown by crop or animal was available.  This "support" is not inclusive of loan programs that have similar high numbers, nor does it include the financial benefits of access to public land and water.

Changing one's diet to primarily vegetarian is the best and most effective thing anyone can do for the environment.  It's positive effects far outweigh other more common efforts such as recycling and toxic cleanup.  To encourage such practical positive changes in our culture we should be taxing meat rather than subsidizing it. 


Why collect income tax from a Social Security or Welfare recipient or a public employee?  Workfare / tax code overhaul can correct and couple taxation with prosperity.

Why should we tax someone on minimum wage?  And why take away their health insurance they would otherwise have on welfare today.  

Taxation is another view of my proposed workfare system.  That is that taxes work both positive and negative.  Someone unable to work needs survival money just as much as the next person.  If they are not able, let their taxation work to bring them money!  As a person improves from that condition let the taxes increase through zero and graduated up to a level equal or less than our present system taxes the rich today.

Any need for more money will easily be filled by environmental and social reform taxation.  Property tax, gas tax, and sin (reasonable levels to avoid black market creation) tax can create great revenue.  If this revenue is channeled properly we won't feel taxation resentment.  Rather we'll see these taxes as creating the change motive that we need to get the changes done.

Environmental taxes can be used to encourage research and solutions.

"Sin" taxes to encourage better behavior.  For example why not tax cigarettes more? The answer is that too much will re-open the black market.  So how about junk-food, soda, etc? We could funnel that back into health care and health research.

Effective taxation will reduce taxes more than any short term tax cut ever could. For example, taxing gas will reduce gas consumption and thus reduce it's self, especially as we move into electric vehicles.  More people will ride bicycles and solar vehicles.  These will be much more efficient and thus reduce our tax burden.  At the same time we'll be creating new industry and new jobs.  Computers and robots are replacing the old industry jobs anyway. 

Foreign Relations

Foreign relations are a multifaceted endeavor.  There are real issues for military, trade, world government, and communications.

World government

Just like people, a good example is the best sermon.  The UN, NATO, and the USA are already established in the role of world leadership.  The European Union is another rising force.  By supporting human rights and freedoms they can demonstrate how good things can be.  This goes in stark contrast to countries that allow such abuses as "honor killings" of women suspected of having sex.  Who do you think a developing country would prefer to emulate?

The UN works like a parliamentary system without a judicial branch.  The Security Council serves as and executive branch.  Because neither branch has one country in power its' structure prevents a single megalomaniac from taking over the world in the name of the UN.  There is a 2 way balance of power between the parliament and security council in the UN.  It does suffer some corruption issues, as does any government presently on the planet. 

The dangers in the UN for extreme corruption are that the 5 countries in the Security Council could share a common corrupt interest and fool the rest of the parliament (a la Johnson in 1965).  Another danger is that the laws passed in the parliamentary system don't have to pass a constitutionality test by an independent judicial branch.  That's why it's so important for the member nations to carefully review/ratify the treaties. 


The USA is the economic world leader because of its wisdom on trade.  The lessee-faire approach to trade has been in sharp contrast with other nations' protectionist strategies.  I note this here as a simple reminder of common sense. 

More recently, Japan and Microsoft have demonstrated the effectiveness of "dumping" in order to gain market share.  The traditional philosophy of lessee-faire says that the country dumped on is the beneficiary of such tactics.  However, anti-trust laws were passed about 100 years ago to address the most severe cases in which competition is eliminated.  At the time, Railroad companies were eliminating all competition the raising prices. Since it takes court action to address each case it's unlikely that these laws will lead to more protectionism.

We must remain vigilant that the UN's ( World Trade Organization doesn't reverse these US principles via treaties such as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).  There is already indication that GATT is inflicting tariffs (superceding US laws via treaty) on imports to the US without much rhyme or reason.

It should be noted that many people are speaking out against NAFTA and GATT.  Especially GATT that gives the UN treaty power over US laws. This started before the US passed them in sudden presidential/congress approvals without debate.  Because of GATT, the UN is widely criticized as the "New World Order" that will destroy humanity. 

Thus the UN and WTO must be watched closely by the citizens of the US.  If things get out of hand we must begin to act in mass or it will become another foreign influence to destroy individual freedoms.  The WTO has already pushed for some stupid helmet legislation. Why did it get passed in such a rush behind the backs of the American citizens?  Who manipulated the president and congress into such fast action?  Here's a site critical of the UN, GATT and NAFTA:

The World Bank and BCCI have been widely criticized for similar reasons.  The World Bank has taken the lead stimulating farmers in Brazil to mow down rainforests and farm Beef for export into the USA.  Conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's assassination also attribute JFK's opposition to the World Bank as another reason for his assassination.  The defense companies and the World Bank are certainly linked as the World Bank finances so many foreign military hardware purchases.  The Warren Commission report never did make sense as any more than a cover-up.

In spite of the criticisms of the UN, World Bank, GATT and NAFTA, these systems have demonstrated their advantages too.  The UN has protected many smaller nations from being taken over by their neighbor.  For example, The UN stood up for Kuwait against Iraq.  If we remain vigilant about our individual freedoms then a globalized economy should be the best situation for everyone.


Making the USA better makes it even more of an attractive destination.  This means that there will be increasing pressure on our borders and social systems.

libertysmTightening border controls isn't the answer.  In fact it would be our destruction.  It's our diversity that is our greatest strength.  The Statue Of Liberty reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Many people fear excess immigration because they fear the loss of their own jobs - getting replaced by cheaper labor.  Without improvements to our present welfare/workfare safety net that fear will continue to rage. 

With improvements to the safety net the fear of job loss will turn around into greed for more profit because immigrants do stimulate our economy. As a group immigrants possess an image of being hard workers.

A day-labor workfare program will also improve tourism too!  For example, day labor for pay would enable many people to visit here and pay for their trip all at once.  That's ingenuity - the American way!

According to an anti immigration group,

The annual flow of immigration consists of two parts: legal and illegal. In 1996, the breakdown was approximately 916,000 (75%) legal and 300,000 (25%) illegal, a total of 1,216,000. 

The major categories of 1996 legal immigrants are: immediate relatives - 302,000 (33% of legal immigration); other family related - 212,000 (32%); employment based - 123,000 (13%); refugees/asylees - 129,000 (14%); other misc. - 72,000 (8%).

Several external forces (so-called "push factors") have been driving immigration, especially illegal immigration, upward. They include:  (A) rapid world population growth; (B) endemic underemployment in the Third World; (C) more accessible and affordable transportation; (D) rising expectations among citizens of non-Western countries.

Several internal forces (or "pull factors") also drive immigration upward. They include: (A) more generous refugee and asylum policies and church-operated resettlement programs; (B) employers' desire for cheap labor and for the "best and brightest"; (C) lax enforcement of our immigration laws against illegal immigration; (D) support networks and advocacy efforts by immigrants-rights groups;

The amount of immigration we presently have has been our greatest defense against terrorism.  After all, if you were a terrorist who got here and discovered that the government of the USA was way better than the one at home and some of your friends are already here wouldn't you think twice about hurting the USA? 

With inclusionary tactics such as a good workfare program open to immigrants and even tourists, people who come here for profit will go back home and improve their own countries, or remain to stimulate the economy.

Workfare gives good answers for general unskilled immigrants and refugees.  If it also eliminates the "welfare trap" then it will turn good immigrants into good taxpaying citizens.  After all, most people are both able bodied and able minded. The challenge is finding work for all of us while computers and robots do more and more of what we used to do. 

Roosevelt proved that something was better than nothing.  We still have parks and buildings that were built on the Roosevelt workfare programs during the great depression of the 1930s.  We didn't really "need" those things then but everyone wanted to pitch in somehow because nobody felt good asking for a handout in the middle of a depression.  In Times of prosperity we can give people that same dignity to our mutual gain.


UFO's?  Yea I think they exist, and most are probably ours!  Check out Aviation Week (slang= Leek) & Space Technology,, for some cool technology.

Newscasts and Internet communications have already reduced our desire for meaningless war.  Peace is a widely held value.  Anyone corrupting that peace can quickly face world condemnation.  But what does that do to someone bent on destruction of others?

Chemical and biological warfare, terrorism, and sabotage are simple to execute.  Sure we have the technology to wipe out the defenses of almost any foreign country.  Yet more and more are becoming members of the Nuclear Club.

So why are we still here?  Because people in other countries mostly see through the phony teachings of their oppressors.  If they don't defect while in that country they usually do by the time they get here and before they execute their evil plan.  If this weren't true then why have we been so lucky?  Are we really to believe that our police, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc are that good at fighting terrorism?  I doubt it.   I think it's a human instinct thing.

Military training traditionally comes with heavy brainwashing.  The ideal soldier is a "Manchurian candidate" meaning they follow orders without question.  This is easier to accomplish in countries such as Iraq and China where the individuals in the country don't have access to basic technology or the Internet.  This prevents them from learning the truth about their oppression - making them feel isolated. 

Lucky for us, the most severe brainwashing seems to fall apart on the way into the USA.  Why?  Well all the boarders have TVs for the public.  Radio and diverse cultural composition give them a big eye-opening.  They get suspicious very fast, and not about us but he who initiated the killing mission.

Individuals who treat everyone else with a basic mutual respect regardless of race, creed, nationality are what is saving us.  It's the same concept that makes it possible to walk the streets in the ghetto without getting mugged or killed.   If you walk there gawking (disrespecting) or presenting yourself as better you can become a target. If you don't present yourself as superior you'll probably get along fine. 

I used ghetto as a corollary to an area where people in this country have more hostility than other areas.  That's not really it.  They are simply needier than others are and therefore more likely to take in desperation just like other countries with less wealth are compared to us.  Changing to workfare and growing interpersonal values can improve this situation even further.

When dealing with a nuclear country, we resist their terrorism as I mentioned above.  We also assure our peace through our strength.  Missile defense systems give us the upper hand in the balance of power.  We should recognize that defense spending is our nations biggest workfare program in existence.  If we shift our thinking that way a little then there can be more easy overlap for military systems to benefit humanity.  Certainly that link is there anyway.

The military invented the Internet as an invulnerable communication system.  Luckily we people get to use it too and it is unstoppable in that we can communicate to anyone we choose or even publish to the whole world! It's unstoppable nature also protects the kind of speech that many governments would try to stop.  This includes "hate speech", and anti-government propaganda.  This is good too because it's better to let them talk than to suppress them while they get more and more desperate and violent.

Major Social Issues

"Tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, ... get out my guitar and play, just like yesterday, then I get on my knees and pray,  we don't get fooled again". -- The Who.

Public awareness is the lifeblood of democracy.  Without it the USA would still be a country of great oppression and hostility toward minorities, women, and anyone else who could be singled out by elitist megalomaniacs like Hitler.  What people think is very important. The only way to truly effect real social and governmental reform and change is via public awareness.  Otherwise we'll just keep on voting for the perpetrators of more social destruction, treating ourselves as a cancer that must be cut off or cut out. 

First let's recognize that discrimination in most of it's forms is harmful.  Modern discrimination is still widespread.  Body shame, impossible body shapes (Barbie), appearance, philosophy, and Age discrimination are common.  Cosmetic surgeries (Rib reductions, breast implants, hair implants, and face-lifts) are often necessary to remain employable, especially in industries such as TV.  This comes from our attitudes. 

For this purpose I'll expand upon more of the areas where I feel public awareness is lacking. 


We must remember that minorities are not the problem at hand.  If they appear to be the problem then there's probably a deeper problem that's the root cause. 

Even if you believe that different groups have different characteristics such as intelligence levels, we must recognize that some individuals within each group far surpass the norms of the other groups in both positive and negative ways.   Any attempts to stratify ourselves based on group status would eventually lead to testing of individuals for similar unseemly purposes. 

"When they came for the Jews, nobody cared, When they came for the gays, nobody cared.  When they came for the artists, nobody cared.  When they came for me nobody cared" - Anonymous Nazi war camp prisoner.

If we want to preserve our own rights and freedoms we must defend minorities of all forms against anyone trying to strip them of their rights and freedoms.

Technology again can level the playing field too.  Since viruses operate by changing the DNA composition of a cell to replicate themselves, they are used to deliver DNA changes for gene therapies.  Thus when desirable DNA characteristics such as intelligence and longevity are discovered, disseminating the change to the human race can be as simple as releasing a virus to a single individual. Weekly World News already reported the existence of such a virus.  Hmmm could it be true?  Well if it were, WWN is the only sort of publication that could deliver such new news to the public without creating outrage (getting us used to the idea).


Women represent 1/2 of the society but still face serious issues of oppression by the laws.  Thus they are still considered a "minority".  Mostly the oppressive laws were originally designed to enforce widely held values that are unenforceable.


Let me start by saying that I do not condone prostitution nor do I want my own daughter to pursue that profession.  However, it should be a purely moral issue rather than a legal issue.  Legislation of morality is a bad idea.

Prostitution is often referred to as "The World's Oldest Profession".  Even in the story of Adam and Eve, Eve got Adam to eat the apple.  Thus there exists a viewpoint that Eve required payment from Adam.  Many marriages can be viewed as a form of prostitution.  So can the hunter/gatherer bringing home food for sex.

Here's some statistics from

It is difficult to estimate the number of persons who currently work, or have ever worked as prostitutes for many reasons including the various definitions of prostitution. Arrest figures are over 100,000[/yr]. The National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that over one million people in the US have worked as prostitutes in the United States, or about 1% of American women.

Average arrest, court and incarceration costs amount to nearly $ 2,000.00 per arrest. Cities spend an average of 7.5 million dollars on prostitution control every year, ranging from 1 million dollars (Memphis) to 23 million dollars (New York).

This means roughly $200M per year is spent by taxpayers on arrest, court and incarceration of prostitutes.  Obviously the legal costs enforce a need for the money available by prostitution since the legal costs to the prostitutes is probably higher (ie: a defense attorney for a felony charge is > $2K).

In 1949, the United Nations adopted a resolution in favor of the decriminalization of prostitution, which has been ratified by fifty countries (not by the United States). Many countries complied with decriminalization by decriminalizing prostitution per se, leaving all related activities criminal such as soliciting, advertising, etc. In 1973 the National Organization for Women passed a resolution supporting the decriminalization of prostitution.

The U.S. Department of Health consistently reports that only 3-5% of the sexually transmitted disease in this country is related to prostitution (compared with 30-35% among teenagers). There is no statistical indication in the U.S. that prostitutes are vectors of HIV. Although a small percentage of prostitutes may be HIV positive, William Darrow, CDC AIDS epidemiology official, cites no proven cases of HIV transmission from prostitutes to clients. book review of Crossing over the Line : Legislating Morality and the Mann Act (The Chicago Series in Sexuality, History, and Society) by David J. Langum: "Until 1986 any man who traveled with a woman other than his wife across the state lines of America could be found guilty of a federal felony under the notorious Mann Act of 1910. Spawned by "white slave trade" hysteria, the Act started as a weapon against forced prostitution. But the Supreme Court soon extended its coverage to include any man who intended to commit an "immoral act" with a woman who had crossed state lines. Authorities enforced the law selectively, and it engendered a thriving blackmail trade. This history of the Act's bizarre career is also a cautionary tale about the folly of legislating morality." expresses the sense of oppression felt by prostitutes:

Laws against pimping are a big problem for whores. Pimping laws are not very effective against the bad exploiters (surprise!), but, rather, they are used to get plea bargains from prostitutes who work together to protect each other. Pimping means living off the earnings of a prostitute. When we are arrested as prostitutes, our children can be charged as pimps. Our lovers are charged as pimps. Besides, I may want to fuck for money, but that doesn't mean I want to be bothered with the complicated business of finding clients, making dates, and running an establishment. Maybe l'd rather work in a house or a place with other pros, where we can afford security. All that is charged as pimping. Laws should be forced against the exploiters. We have a right to third-party management. Ideally, those who help us run our businesses will work as agents, but some of us will work in houses, in parlors, in family groups, and as independents. Laws against living off our money may have been designed to protect us, but they are always used to control and stigmatize us.

Laws against pandering (encouraging prostitution) make my life into one big felony. If I say anything besides "I hate prostitution," I can be locked up for years. It sort of inhibits a person. But I know. I know. Why be selfish! Poverty, violence, the AIDS crisis, and increasingly visible street prostitution have fostered discussion of law reform across the United States. So I promote decriminalization of all aspects of sex work, along with enforcement of laws against abuse, rape, violence, assault, deceit, force, and coercion used against prostitutes."

Canada has led the way in decriminalizing prostitution.  The legal issues are reduced, but the profession lives on.  There appears to be a fairly constant rate of prostitution regardless of the laws in any area. 

It's my recommendation that the USA also decriminalize prostitution.  Doing so offers hope of better health services.  It also offers a better opportunity to identify root causes and proscribed remedies (ie: workfare).

Equal Pay

Much has been said about equal pay for equal work.  We have a long way to go.  In some ways change can be easy and other ways it may be difficult or even unreasonable.  For example, should physical labor be paid better than mental labor?  How about care-giving compared to policing?  Dissimilar jobs have dissimilar economic basis for pay.  Thus this one defies an easy answer.  However, in the context of a workfare program there could be much better equality.  For example, a person could choose ditch-digging or care-giving at an equal compensation, or compensations determined by demand.

In the context of raw capitalism maybe such unfair discrimination wouldn't be so harmful as it is today if it weren't the only game in town.  Raw capitalism is inherently loaded with such discrimination.  What we oppose continues underground. 

In the open such things as news-anchor jobs consider physical appearance and we as a culture don't seem to have a reasonable solution to reconcile the economic force with the human element.  Sometimes we should just let it be. 

Military Draft

A more recent topic to consider concerns the draft.  Presently there is draft registration of males at age 18.  Should women be included in the draft?  If they want to be counted as equal then the answer is clearly yes.  Thus if men are to continue registering then we must expand that registration process to include everyone. 

Not everyone drafted becomes an infantryman.  People have vast physical differences.  The military has a valid reason to organize it's workforce according to physical characteristics.  However, pulling people from society must be a fair and equal activity.  Also, there must be allowance made for those who personally object to being drafted since they would be no good for the military without a commitment to it.  If they do oppose a draft then some other form of social burden would be appropriate.  Jail would not.  Note that the USA had war camps for Orientals during WWII.  Back then race was a primary differential in our us/them mentality.

War is serious business.  Sun Tzu's The Art of War is a 2000-year-old book from the time of Confucius.  It opens with a description of how a powerful fighting force was made from 100 women by executing 2 of the many who didn't follow orders.  After that they all obeyed perfectly. Social laws applied inside the military can destroy the military's capabilities.  

What is necessary is that the military make use of all forms of people rather than labeling minorities as somehow deficient and worthy of further cultural discrimination such as a dishonorable discharge for being homosexual, black, short, etc.  Inside the military, grouping according to fighting capabilities, sex, or other characteristics must be done with military effectiveness in mind rather than individual feelings.  If at war with a foreign country then those with roots in that country should have either a discharge or special role.  This is just the opposite of what is appropriate for society at large and a delicate balance to maintain.

Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Religious freedom is crucial to freedom of speech and spiritual development.  Without freedom of religion and the right to disseminate one's faith there can be no rights of conscience and no genuine democracy.  In older times, religion was needed as a government tool to create us/them. 

'Without that necessity of the past, how can someone call himself or herself a Christian or any other religious label unless it's a free choice.  Freedom of belief is one of the fundamental elements of public freedoms.'  -- paraphrased from "The Watchtower", a Jehovah's Witnesses' publication.  Note that the Jehovah's Witnesses also protected freedoms by winning a Supreme Court decision making the pledge of allegiance to the flag optional.

I think this is a good point to insert that it's because I can burn the flag that I don't want to.  Anti-flag burning legislative attempts (ie: Oliver North supports these efforts) are a direct assault on freedom of belief and thus freedom of religion.

The Disaffected

The Unibomber Manifesto, (paragraph 93) argues that:

" Industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom." (95) " It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government."...older societies " allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will. There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control."

It goes on and on from an anarchist philosophy blaming technology for the world's troubles and advocating a revolution even at the expense of mass deaths.  He correctly points out that anyone who wants the destruction of the existing system is branded as "Crazy". 

Individual freedoms are controlled more by economic influences than governmental influences.  It's easier to fire someone than to arrest someone for their speech.  Mainstream mass media has so far been controlled by big money.  More locally, companies use propaganda to further their causes. 

The problem is that the media and employers do not promote free thinking that challenge their own power.  Successful efforts toward disempowerment of the masses lead to an increasing sense of helplessness and apathy.  Luckily, free thinkers are the life-blood of corporate performance.  Companies that don't recognize that fact usually fail.

Common sense effects the representative governmental power structure in a way that has not yet been revoked.  Also in our favor is the increasing knowledge of the masses provided by better programming and communication technologies such as the Internet (the opposite of the Unibomber's theory of doom).

From first hand observational experience in the Information Technology field I've noted a trend in the pattern of behavior when people get their first computer with the Internet.  This is a serious dose of technology that should tend either to prove or to disprove the Unibomber's theory.  So far it's disproving.  Here's what I observe:

First the previously forbidden or expensive fruits intrigue them.  This normally takes such forms as pornography, or conspiracy theories, or the pursuit of a hobby or personal interest.

Next they become aware of its' communication potential such as email and their own web pages.  Often in this stage they get themselves into trouble by posting or emailing controversial material (flaming messages, pictures, etc).

They become outraged at things they find on the Internet.  This usually includes some combination of conspiracy theories, social decay, political action they disapprove of, and anything that challenges their own philosophy.

Finally, they become proficient at using the technology as a communication and library tool empowering them in their primary interests.

Note that the severity of the effects vary widely.  People who care and are otherwise interested in their government seem to be effected the most.  Who knows if it could have saved the Unibomber from his psychosis.  However, the cycle does end with an improved sense of empowerment - the very essence of the Unibomber's' complaint toward the status quo.

Thus there is hope even for the most disaffected of us that technology such as the Internet can empower the disaffected in ways that raise common sense of the masses.  Meanwhile, there's a counter-force pushing for its' regulation.  It appears that the regulatory forces are not achieving their goals. 

Marriage and Homosexuals

Marriage?  Let the government definition of marriage to be just a partnership.  In this context, people are agreeing to be a living partnership rather than a sexual union.  Who cares if married people have sex or what their sex is.  After all, aren't platonic room-mates married in a sense.  They certainly team up with groceries and other life necessities.  If they want to share health insurance and other marital perks why not allow this.  Separating the idea of sex from marriage might also save some of the more common troubled traditional marriages too.

If we have a solid contractual understanding of marriage from a governmental standpoint then we are free to attach any religious meaning we want.  We can define our own contracts.

The laws attached to marriage come from a time when women were not considered equal.  If we consider women equal then those laws are by definition out dated.  In transition from the 50s to the 2000s we'll need to further uplift the value we place on child-care.  With that a stay-at home mother becomes employable at least in a work-fare way.  Thus alimony is gone gone gone.  So are some of the legal complexities of the standard marital contract (which nobody reads before getting married).

The sodomy laws still exist in many states, making it a felony to be a homosexual.  Even though these laws aren't enforced their existence continues to create other dangerous conditions.  For example, an Arizona case awarded custody of a child to a mother who received beatings from her spouse rather than the boy's father who had the same homosexual relationship for 10 years.  The judge said the judgment was for the boys mother because sodomy was a felony and domestic violence was not.


The family is the basic cultural building block.  Thus I'll address some core controversial family issues.


During an international education seminar, Harvard psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, speaking as an expert in public education, said:

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity.  It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well -- by creating the international child of the future."

I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but I would prefer that to their being educated by the state." -- Max Victor Belz, grain dealer, Iowa.

"We don't need no education" is a popular Pink Floyd song from the movie The Wall.  It clearly articulated the fact that education has historically been more about teaching conformity than teaching values or real education.  Since the 70s public awareness of this has grown. That's why we keep hearing more and more about vouchers.  That's a good thing. 

One of the most sever underground forms of conformity training prevalent in schools is the bully system.  Anyone who doesn't conform to the bully's will, or will of the click is outcast (picked on both physically and mentally).  Often kids say mean things even in front of teachers and nothing is done about it.  It happened to me and it happened to my stepson.  In both cases (1975 and 1998), the only effective remedy was changing the school. 

Teachers and school administrations don't seem to adequately address these problems.  Rather they turn the other cheek at the expense of the abused child.  For my stepson I found that teaching him better social skills and how to fight was effective.  The thing about teaching fighting skills is it truly does reduce a child's desire to be in a fight when they find out how easy it is to cause another person serious physical harm (ie: poke out an eye). 

I should point out that core of these abuses seems to have been cultural prejudice.  For me it was fear of homosexuals (got the wrap even though I was too young to understand it) and "Niger-lovers".  For him it was being a vegetarian without adequate social skills.  We also both had a stronger than average will not to lay down for the bully and just take it.

Vouchers are a proposal to return financial power to parents allowing them to choose the school their child attends.  If this is done wisely it will also lead to commercialization of education.  The schools that are the most effective (socially, academically, and economically) will dominate.  That's American capitalism at it's best.

Current statistics show better performance in the private sector. shows that the average public school cost per student-year (K-12) is $265B / 43.5M students = $6091. The same study quotes the average cost per year at private schools in 1991 to be only $1800 for elementary and $4400 for secondary plus some subsidies for special education compensatory education and church tuition assistance.

If we think simply of our own children what kind of things do we want them to get?  Well I'll venture the following:

Reading, Writing, Arithmetic

Social skills such as teamwork, leadership

Daycare - a place for the kids while adults work

Values - respect for fellow humans

Health (Sex, Drugs, Rock-n-Roll, diet, exercise)

Expansion of thinking and creativity

Why hasn't the voucher system gone in yet?  Well think again of the establishment and the number of ten-yeared teachers who would loose jobs.  In the long term that's good if we can have better education.  Do you know that today a person with teaching experience (in business) and an MSEE (heavy math) cannot get a job teaching high school math?  They need to become certified (2-3 more years college).  Yet private schools can employ experts and even pay them competitively.  Maybe that's why our private universities thrive even in states with public university systems.

Extensive information about education reform is published at The problem with this proposed reform is that it doesn't go far enough.  Better solutions are offered by  This organization proposes separation of education and state similar to separation of religion and state.


Right or wrong, making it illegal won't help.  In the 50s and early 60s, prior to legalization of abortion there were many cases of death by failed home abortions.  Conversely, many people religiously believe it is very wrong to abort a fetus.  Thus, we should look at why some pregnant women choose to have abortions.  With that information we may vastly reduce the frequency of abortion while keeping it legal.

Statistics from the CDC on abortion, , indicate these statistics on the women seeking abortions: 78% were unmarried, 47% had no prior children,  21% were under age 19.

"On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner." -- The Alan Guttmacher Institute,

Even abortion opponents recognize that cases of rape, incest, and mother's health are valid reasons to keep it legal.  The case of rape is particularly important.  Not all rape is created equal.  Date-rape is still "rape", but what about sex when one partner sabotages the condom?  Is this rape?  And what about alcohol, drugs, age, and so many other factors?  The existing legal status is appropriate in the face of all these factors.  However, there's a growing spiritual view that abortion without reason is equate-able with murder.  If our system doesn't recognize that force and give it appropriate heed we could easily suffer a backlash to the 50s intact with coat-hanger abortions.

If we recognize that some abortions are appropriate while some are not then what do we do?  Simple, take away the external motivators that cause most of the abortions.  In my thinking fear of poverty is the biggest motivator.  If we provide workfare, child-care, adoptions, and other services via government I think we can reasonably conclude that the number of abortions will be vastly reduced.  The remaining abortions will be mostly all for good reasons.  We could even provide financial incentive to avoid abortion.  Thus common sense offers a much better solution for both views than does our existing political rhetoric of pro-life / pro-choice with nothing in between.

Child Support

The basic cost of raising a child is fairly constant and more related to geography than the economic status of the parents.

Existing child support laws directly interfere with child welfare. As a father, my ability to contribute to my child is directly affected by having to pay support.  I'll go on about my situation since it is so typical. 

I pay 17% regardless of what I earn, where I live and what my X earns, or her live-in (spouse via common law) earns.  To change this would require opening up legal battles that would cost both of us big legal bills for potentially the same outcome. 

I'd gladly put the same amount into a trust for her education.  My X for a long time was the last person on earth that I wanted to give money to.  She also is better off financially than I am.  Luckily, that situation changed because we became a better co-parenting team.  That's the result of personal growth and effort by both her and me, not our existing laws.

If a tax-deduction for a child makes sense then why do we charge fathers money they often don't have for children they often don't have access to.  When I lived 6 hours away I still paid the same amount. In that situation I couldn't afford the travel or phone bills to maintain my relationship effectively.  Although I should at the same time admit that my priorities have shifted with time such that those factors aren't as large as they once were.

Anger is a big factor in split marriages.  By creating a financial obligation between the split couple, the anger is escalated.  This frequently leads to an escalation of bad events in the child's life.  Young parents are the most financially stressed group in our culture.  With so much anger in a breakup the added financial stress leads many fathers to divorce their children along with their wives in bewilderment over support payments.  The fact that this isn't right doesn't make it go away.  Reality is that anger amplified can lead to men hurting themselves to avoid helping their perceived enemy.

Distribution of child support isn't fair either.  I've earned some good wages leading to $800+ monthly support payments.  That's 12 times the minimum I've heard in New York.  And note that the $50 minimum requirement is required job or not.  Even if a father has no income, failure to pay can result in imprisonment.  Then how does he pay?  Chances are that if he can't come up with $50 then jail may be free room and board (a form of conscientious objection) at a very high taxpayer expense.

I don't feel like my X is any more deserving than any other mother.  I would rather see all child support go into a central fund and be distributed evenly.  But once that's considered then I must ask… Why penalize fathers?  If the support comes from a central fund then can't we let a simple tax code determine who pays what into the fund?

If we recognize the workfare / welfare needs of small children then we no longer need child support.  Eliminating it from our culture will eliminate a great deal of stress from parents and therefore children.

Health Technology

Health insurance costs have increased.  Meanwhile, there are reports surfacing of abuses in HMOs.  Others who are sick have no safety-net.  We need a better system.  Of coarse this will be opposed by the existing health insurance companies.  However, our health is at stake.

The system in Canada is a good model of a better system.  Preventative medicine is free, including surgery.  Yet we must have limits for things like cosmetic surgery just to keep costs reasonable until technology catches up.

Technology will reduce long-term healthcare costs of the things we now consider basic.  However, new technology will be expensive and life saving at the same time.  How do we decide who gets the new technology?  In the mean time we can expect allot more geriatric patients living much longer.  There is great hope in some fields of medical research.  However, the most important survival factor of all is keeping the environment viable for human life.

If we accomplish these things we may be able to extend the human lifetime indefinitely. This is the beginning in a wide range of technology that will radically test our paradigms.  Genetic engineering certainly offers the promise of "eternal" life for enough money, no accidents, and a place live.

These technologies do offer hope to our existing USA since they preserve the lives of those among us with great experience.  Then again, maybe we'll become even more stuck in our ways of self-annihilation. No longer is it reasonable to just accept that our parents are old and stuck in their ways.  They must be taught just like our children.  Meanwhile it's amazing what some of the youngest and oldest people come up with.  It's also amazing what technology is providing.

Communication to Telepathy

Low scale forms of telepathy seem within our reach. Certainly we can mount a cell-phone on our belt and talk on it with a headset. Eventually we may be able to reduce the circuitry to a chip implant communicating with previously unused nerve cells to enhance our communication modes. As the technology got better and better it would someday resemble what we now call ESP. So what does ESP teach us about it?  A communication device has already been implanted giving a quadriplegic person the ability to operate a computer mouse.

Using the ESP technology, would we be able to turn off the transmitter and receiver? We'll need to obtain such skills to exist in our current society. Otherwise, an offensive thought would be unbound and hurt others. Also, too much coming in would prevent us from having our own thoughts.

Conversely well need to learn better control of our thoughts as individuals so that we may communicate with others more and not have to turn off our transmitters so often.  As Frank Outlaw put it:

Watch your thoughts they become your words

Watch your Words they become your Actions 

Watch your Actions they become your Habits

Watch your Habits they become your Character

Watch your Character it becomes your Destiny

If it were possible to limit the input and output of such a device (or spiritual gift), then it would be a powerful thing indeed. We would be able to think to our friends anywhere on earth to enhance our closeness to people or things that are far away. The telephone was the first major development having this effect. For business, it facilitates communication for everything from transactions/deals to collaborative design.

In human relations, the telephone has certainly brought us closer. Without it we may have already had world war 3. With it, we have a hotline between the US president and USSR's President. This hotline (the red telephone) was invented during the cold war to assure communication would be possible in the event of an accidental launch of nuclear weapons.  

Modern technology such as cell phones headsets and implants are improving our communication to the point where we'll be able to talk to anyone from anywhere at any time.  Then again, we already have that (Cell phones).

Head transplants

Recently a human hand was transplanted.  Part of the technology that enables that is nerve growth and splicing. Whenever a nerve cell is severed, it forms a layer of scar tissue fairly quickly. However, a new form of poison, which is specific to the protein of the scar tissue, allows the cell to continue growing. The transplanted human hand finally proves it works on humans. 

If we can transplant a hand then eventually we will be able to repair spinal cord injuries and even transplant heads. Research is ongoing.  Some researchers are using rats to test these very ideas.  Small segments of the spinal cord are removed, and the poison is used to splice nerve connections.

This creates bizarre possibilities for us as humans. At first we may be faced with miraculous cures to paralysis. Extending the technology makes it conceivable for a head-transplant. Socially, the possibility of changing bodies is hard to imagine. For example, you could change your sex, height, weight, and appearance. Yet, what about the donor? Well I guess we see some of this now with organ transplants and plastic surgery.

The reason I mention something so bizarre to our present thinking as a head transplant is that we are vastly increasing life span.  Things that seem immoral to some may be life saving to others.  We will eventually have to confront these issues head on.

Intelligence Transfer

Since a brain cell is a finite combination of chemicals, it should be possible to develop a Multi Processing Element (MPE) with more capacity. However, note that at an atomic scale determinism has not yet been resolved. For example quantum theory's paradox effects the momentary state of the brain cell. Thus, the MPEs would also have to contain that level of uncertainty or imprecision (complexity of the internal random number generator).

If we ever develop MPEs with more capacity than the human brain cells, we could cut away a small part of the brain and implant some MPEs. After some time, the MPEs would acclimate to their environment in the brain. Since the brain stores things like a holograph ( break a holographic glass plate and all the pieces have the whole picture), the MPEs would learn from the surrounding MPEs and brain cells. After the learning was sufficient, we could cut away another small part of the brain and implant some more MPEs.

Eventually the transfer would be complete when the nerve cells were gone and the MPEs remained. From there, you could remove them from the body, distribute them, replicate them, and so-on. Thus achieving the long dreamed of scenario for moving into the computer.

Assuming the human body is still functioning adequately and the MPEs aren't yet as advanced as the brain cells, it would still be possible to open the scull and attach a few MPEs for specialized purposes like communication, memory, and sensory enhancement.

Humanness and Control

Computers and robots are one form of synthetic humanness to look forward to.  The Manchurian candidates are another even form even more dangerous to freedom.  Commander Data on Star Trek shows an example of technology extrapolated a long way toward synthetic humanness. In the show, Data is still struggling with perfect language, emotion, and other distinctly human characteristics. Yet he's come a long way since the R2D2 robot in the 1980s movie "Star Wars". 

The "Manchurian Candidate" concept is conditioning a soldier to follow any order without questioning. Thus a good soldier would march to his death for the victory of the army. 

Historically, we've approached this through conditioning such as boot camp. More recently we've also started using pain-inducing devices (such as an electronic leash for a dog).  Straight & Narrow, an episode of the TV show The Outer Limits  ( was about a school where the student body was controlled by chip-implants. The only way to leave the school was to serve the school. The scenario looked not only strange, but also plausible.  Here's the web site's description of the show:

Straight & Narrow - Rusty Dobson (RYAN PHILLIPPE) has always been a problem child. His single mom decides to send him to Milgram Academy, an ultra-strict private school that has produced some of the nation's top business and political leaders. What Rusty's mom doesn't know - and what Rusty finds out the hard way - is that Milgram doesn't just build the leaders of tomorrow, it controls them. The academy installs small computer chips in the students' brains, turning them into blindly loyal servants of the academy and The Committee, a shadowy body that controls the project. Thanks to a malfunctioning chip, Rusty has eluded their control so far, but can he escape from this prison of the mind?  {*He was re-captured at the end of the show implying they would implant a new chip.*}

Our technology already makes this scenario possible by implanting pain-inducing devices like the electronic dog leash. We can also track chip locations from the satellites.

We might first get tempted into this for better control of people on parole.  If used for good reason by a benevolent controller it can be a good thing.  However the potential for abuse is severe and we must start to think about it (become aware) before it gets adopted into something else which is unjust such as the War On Drugs (zap when you think of a fix zap, zap, zap).

Location and identification devices have already been widely sold for use in animals.  Children are a natural progression of that mentality.  "Buy a kid tracker in case of kidnapping" (allow the police and corporations to monitor the kid's location forever).

Higher Philosophy

Many religions have prophecies of the end-times. They portray a world transformed from evil to good through a huge battle between good and evil. Technological development leads man to an apocalypse where we must choose between self-destruction and survival by learning to love one another.

It is easy to speculate that our continued technological development will lead to a transformation. The difficulty of the transformation is much more difficult to predict. It sure would be nice to eliminate the possibility of self-annihilation, but without it is such a transformation possible?  One view is that the apocalypse of World War III will occur inside each individual, brought on by increasing information until we either face ourselves or self-destruct.


Auto Laws

Drunk Driving Laws

Drunk driving laws are unfair and outdated.  Many alcoholics can function fine with 0.1 alcohol.  Many non-alcoholics cannot.  Meanwhile we have many other causes of impaired drivers.  What are we worried about anyway? Safe roads. We don't want irresponsible behavior of the few to kill the innocent.  Alcohol is but one of many causes.  The Breathalyzer only measures one form of impairment.  And again punishment doesn't seem to change behavior.

Thus what can we come up with? First, when police have a valid reason to test someone (as done now, except checkpoints are unjust), we need a better test for fitness to drive.  Driving takes mental and physical ability. A video game can simulate driving skills well enough to model both the physical and mental requirements.  This sort of tests would be far at testing driving ability than a Breathalyzer.  The test apparatus would also be cheaper and far more accurate than the Breathalyzer.

Someone unable to pass such a test when required (as in today's breathalyzer) would be guilty of driving disabled.  To drive again the person would need to re-prove their ability to drive well.  For repeat offenders we could create greater impediments to their re-proving their capability.  Confiscating cars of the offenders isn't an appropriate solution.  Jail is appropriate because driving disabled does endanger others.  A first offence is understandable, but repeat offenses within a few years are clearly appropriate situations for jail.  And note that this form of crime would be better addressed by weekends in jail then most other crimes that endanger others.

From that simple testing approach let me say it wouldn't matter anymore if it's alcohol, drugs, sleep, physical condition, mental condition, or something else.  We would be directly enforcing our goal to have safe drivers.

Another solution coming of age is technology.  Rather than caring if people can drive safely we are designing cars that drive themselves.  With time these technologies will replace the necessity of human driving.  Cars will truly know their way home.  However, as long as we want to have fun and don't loose our freedoms to oppressive laws, we'll always have motorcycles with real drivers.  For that reason we'll need to improve our safe driver testing and laws.

Motorcycles Without Helmets

Riding a motorcycle is a risky activity that brings our will into real-time and thus stimulates the free feelings we have.  Having the wind in my hair is even better. 

Harley Davidson (made in USA) motorcycles without a helmet are especially satisfying to people who love the USA for it’s protection of their freedoms.  (original statement)

Laws in states requiring helmets are very annoying to motorcycle riders – especially harley riding USA loving people who cherish their freedoms.  The pro-helmet lobby includes helmet manufacturers, anti-motorcycle people (fearful and fundamentalist opposers of individual sovereignty), news companies such ABC World News, doctors, and insurance companies.  Reality is not what these lobbies preach with their slanted statistics.  Here's some better data.

The following is the justification of Bill Number A1956A pending in the New York legislature (provided to me by Assemblyman Robert J. Warner of the 124th District who supports the bill):

The "Federal Aid Highway Act of 1975" abolished the power of the Department of Transportation to withhold highway safety funds for noncompliance with mandatory helmet laws.  Since then, thirty-two states have repealed their helmet laws, with the exception of California, which never had one.  Included in this number are such neighboring states as Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, and Ohio, making New York law inconsistent with regional policy.

Statistics from NYS Motor Vehicle accident reports show the percentage of fatalities per number of accidents has not decreased as expected, but has actually increased by a small percentage since New York State required helmet usage.

The State Police of Maryland reported that, within the first 6 months of repeal, motorcyclist fatalities decreased by 30%.  The State of Rhode Island reported a 166.7% increase in fatalities in 1971 when their helmet regulation was in effect, but a 40% reduction in fatalities in 1979 when such regulation had been repealed.

Helmets-are an unnatural weight upon the head of the rider and radically increase cranial temperatures.  Helmets severely restrict peripheral vision and significantly reduce hearing.  No helmet, regardless of cost or design, is capable of resisting impact stresses above 13 m.p.h., as Federal Department of Transportation testing has evidenced, and, in lateral skids, helmets deteriorated at 2 1/2 m.p.h. The choice of when and where to wear the helmet would best be left up to the person operating the motorcycle, as is the case in other states.

I've been riding for 25 years.  7 of those years I lived in New Hampshire without a helmet law.  It's such a free and wonderful feeling to have the wind in my hair.  So who are you to require me to wear a helmet?  When I had a choice I did wear it for warmth sometimes, like when I rode in the snow. 

Here's more research to de-bunk the notion that helmets save lives, published on the ABATE of Arizona web site at

The data used for this comparison was obtained from the 1994 Motorcycle Statistical Annual, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1994. The state motorcycle accident statistics were divided between states with a mandatory helmet law and those without.

The only variable used in this comparison is a mandatory helmet law. The results show that accident and fatality rates are higher, overall, in states with mandatory helmet laws. The total number of accidents and fatalities are also higher in these same states.

Comparing fatalities to registrations, Mandatory states average 6.61 fatalities per 10K registrations while Voluntary states average 5.63 fatalities per registration.   That's a 17% increase in the fatality rate induced by mandatory helmet use.  Similar math shows a 15% increase in reported accidents. 1993 data comparing registrations to fatalities between states with and without mandatory helmet use shows a 17.6% higher fatality rate in Mandatory states, and highly significant correlation calculation c2 1  of 14.24, which exceeds the 0.01% level of significance. Were wearers and non-wearers recognizable (in optional states), one would expect the results to be even more spectacular and persuasive! While helmet law states have 61% of all the registered motorcycles (2,457,637), they have recorded 64% of all accidents (52,955) and 66% of all fatalities (1,575), a significantly greater number of both accidents and fatalities.  K. Peter Krantz with the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Lund, Sweden, noted that ring fractures of the base of the skull were present in 21 out of 132 cases of motorcyclists whom he studied. Seventeen of these riders were wearing a helmet. Three riders suffering ring fractures of the base of the skull, and two riders who suffered disruption of the junction of the head and neck, did not show any sign of head impact, except for minor abrasions of the chin strap. These injuries are due to the result of a centripetal movement, owing to decreased velocity of the body in relation to the head.

Then there are even more obscure situations like my own.  I recently had a bee collide with my forehead.  Instead of bouncing off it slipped inside the helmet and stung me.  I had an allergic reaction that could have been fatal. Thus I'm tempted to ride without a helmet even thought it's still illegal.  My hope is that a jury would understand and exonerate me. Which leads to the FIJA thinking.  That is the Fully Informed Jury Association,  Check that one out for yourself on the Internet.  It basically says you have a moral obligation to vote your conscience on a jury, and not just simply follow instructions of the judge.

Another side on helmet lobby activity.  Helmets are being studied and pushed for auto safety. 

A foreign study concludes "Wearing helmets in cars has been proved more effective in preventing serious injury than cycle helmets, but promoting car helmets is likely to meet heavy opposition, writes Nigel Perry". 

I can concur with that conclusion since a car has a full windshield.  Wind resistance from the helmet and helmet weight won't contribute as much to accident rates in cars as they do on motorcycles.  Still I want my right to choose.  So much for custom of women going to the hairdresser.  Note the slant toward reducing fatalities in accidents that have already occurred.  On a motorcycle, that is too late.

So what do we do?  The best safety on a bike is to ride with more skill.  Thus the best thing to do is to learn to ride sliding and jumping on the dirt, or don't ride.

For those of us who do ride, help us repeal such stupid laws.  If we can't motivate our legislators then the courts will do.  It's important to the safety of riders that the public become more educated about the fallacy of helmets.  I've noticed that some people are riding without helmets in NY without getting stopped.  Some laws do die by non-enforcement too.

Motorcycle tires for dual-use

Street-legal motorcycle tires designed for off-road use on street legal dirt-bikes are not safe off road.  The treads just aren't as good as the knobbies.  Now depending on how you use your dual-use dirt bike you either favor the road or the dirt.  Common sense says you choose your tires accordingly and be cautions in the opposite dirt/road environment. 

With that bike, I favor the dirt.  Here's the story on why I use a knobby even though it's not street legal.  It's a burden to have to change wheels for an annual inspection, but it's worth it because my personal safety and property are at stake.  In this case I do conscientiously object, and carefully too.

Recently, I hit a stone on a grassy trail while riding my XL600 (dual sport street legal dirt bike) in my back yard. I slid out the front end and landed face first on the grass.  Had the front tire been a knobby it would have been an easy recovery.  Since this wasn't the first front-wheel slide I knew it was time for I put a knobby on. 

Luckily I had a spare knobby already on a rim from an older bike (an XR600).  Since then I've ridden it on the highway for up to 10 miles at a time on 80 degree summer days going 55MPH.  I carefully watched the tire for heating and cracking because I wanted to know my safe limit.  It's been fine and I don't wipe out my front end in the dirt anymore. 

I may not have the same traction or durability I should have on the road but I don't care.  My only reason to ride the road with my dirt bike is to get from one trail to another.  For this purpose the knobby is certainly adequate.  I've been called a rule breaker for this but that's better than crashing my dirt bike like before.  The black eye and helmet strap scratches were painful.  I have a 76 Harley for street and flat-track dirt riding so I don't plan any long trips on the road with a knobby.

So where does the opposite lobby come from?  Well tire manufacturers, DOT, cops, courts, etc.  They have a large presence in public schools too.  It makes me angry to hear them preaching their lies to my kids.  They don't even ride and swallow propaganda whole.

Seat-belts and Airbags

Again more non-sense from auto makers, insurance companies, cops, courts, etc.  Seatbelts and airbags are good ideas for safety.  However, things are out of hand again.  Airbags, car seats, and seatbelts that aren't used properly actually cause death.  Why aren't they being used properly?  Simple, they're mandatory, binary, forced on you, and the designs are still immature.

A recent TV show showed how side airbags kill a child sleeping against the door.  Have you ever taken a child on a 6 hour trip?  They sleep.  How can you keep them from leaning over?  Meanwhile, who is going to hit you from the side on the highway? 

Common sense says we should have a choice in both the selection and application of safety devices.  For example airbags should have on/off switches.  That way they could be turned off for sleeping child situations.  Seat-belts could be used or not used depending on the journey.  Here note that intelligence says that the trip to the store is different than the one on the highway.  What consumers need is choices of seatbelts, airbags or both.  The thinking that we need legislation to enforce safety leads to making skateboards, motorcycles, and anything else "dangerous" illegal.  That trend makes me very unhappy since motorcycles are my favorite year-round life-long sport.  It has also led to a new era in extreme sports.

Technology offers another solution for airbags.  Due to liability issues manufacturers are studding sensors and computers to automatically disable airbags when the passenger's weight is too low or someone is leaning too close to the dashboard.  It's better than nothing, but still I think a human can make better decisions when it's their own safety at stake.  The best answer would be both the computer checking the momentary situation and the human deciding the extenuating circumstances requiring a disabled airbag.

Seatbelt laws require belts on sleeping children.  I'm sure that's not good but taking off the belt is illegal.  Again common sense should override.

I would suggest softening seatbelt laws as follows: Adults - completely optional.  Children only off for "reasonable circumstances" defined as - the driver having a either a momentary or safety reason to choose no belt on a child (ie: sleeping on a trip).

Car seats are another problem. reports "As many as half of the child car seats in use today are installed incorrectly without parents realizing it.   I do take issue with the laws pushed by that web site. I strongly suggest they work to educate the public rather than control them with more oppressive half-baked law.  After all, if 1/2 of the car seats are improperly installed it means our existing car seat laws have been more dangerous than no law at all.  Why don't we take on the lobby?  Are we all really that fooled?

Auto Insurance

The primary argument used to justify mandatory insurance laws is the fear that accident victims without insurance would be a burden to the rest of society, even requiring taxpayers to support them if they get hurt.  There is a significant amount of research disproving this idea.  Just think how such an unusual burden would compare to the every day reality of mandatory insurance payments with insurance companies making a huge profit from everyone.  The burden of mandatory insurance is many orders of magnitude higher than the burden of uninsured patients.

For low income people, mandatory auto insurance puts the cost of car ownership out of reach.  Therefore, mandatory insurance interferes with employment.  How can a welfare recipient get a real job if they can't get there?  How can they get there if they can't afford insurance for the car? Add a couple of tickets or accidents and the insurance can cost a fortune (more than a month's pay).

Next, why should you expect a welfare or a low income person to pay for an accidental scratch in your corvette?  Shame on you for that (unless you are actively working to repeal such inhumane laws).

When I ride a motorcycle I take my own risk on the whole situation with my health and safety as well as my property.  The idea that our property is safe if we can blame someone else for its destruction is destructive to our freedoms.

If you want to drive a Corvette and have insurance against accidental damage then buy your own insurance and leave me alone!  I'll skip the insurance altogether thank you very much.  Yes I'll drive carefully.

Another unseemly aspect of mandatory insurance is that multiple vehicles can cost more to insure than the value of the vehicle.  For example, I have an old truck just sitting because insuring it would cost twice what I paid for it.  In NH without insurance it was derivable and available on the unusual occasions that I needed a truck. 

Mandatory insurance furthers the stratification of the rich and the poor in that only the rich can afford multiple vehicles.  At the same time it enforces the "welfare trap".

No wonder NH has the motto "LIVE FREE OR DIE" on their license plates.

The End Of The World

"It's The End Of The World As We Know It and I feel fine". -- REM song.

This has been acronymised to TEOTWAWKI.  Technology's growth is real to the point where it will take over the world.  Whether or not it will be the end depends on our own growth and common sense.  We'll need to teach our governmental parent to treat us well since we're already pregnant with a governmental/human child called computers.

My calculations about computers confirm these dates, hopes, and fears.

The "Son of Man"

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." -- Matthew 25:13 (English-KJV)

Later bible translations ( change Matthew 25:13 to:

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour" (NIV), and

"So stay awake and be prepared, for you do not know the date or moment of my return" (TLB), and

"Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour" (English-NASB), and

"So watch! You do not know the day or the hour" (English-WE), and

"Watch therefore, for ye have not known the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man doth come" (English-YLT).

I have another idea, not necessarily separate from a second coming of Jesus, but more literal to the King James and YLT Versions. 

That is that we will eventually create a being (son of man) greater than ourselves.  I'll even go further to predict it's date of arrival to be 2013 and prove it mathematically.

Note that 2013 is the last year of the Mayan Calendar and the end of the calendar built into the great pyramid in Giza Egypt. The key prophecy reported about the Great Pyramid of Giza is that in 2013 we either fall into the great abyss or achieve a greater existence.  Many other profits have predicted similar scenarios and/or dates.

The Artificial Intelligence researchers at MIT predict robots/computers becoming more sophisticated than humans, but not until 2040.  They are neglecting the development accelerations likely.

How the "son of man" treats us will depend on how we treat ourselves via our laws. Some analysis of the computer industry will prove that 2013 is not only realistic but a conservative estimate. If we don't wise up to protect our freedoms by then, I sure hope Jesus does return to save us from the beast we create.

Replicating Human Capabilities

How far does the human mind go in calculation, and how far does the computer go? The human mind is truly impressive as a storage and analytical devise. It's certainly more complicated than a desktop computer with current technology.   However, computers are on an exponential growth curve meaning they are sure to catch up - and soon.

The human brain has been estimated to calculate the computer equivalent of 1 trillion floating point operations per second (TFLPOS).  The human body is composed of 75 Trillion cells (roughly 1/3 (25 Trillion) are brain cells (~1013).  The cerebral cortex is composed of 15 Billion temperamental neurons and numerous satellites.  Humans also have the 5 senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.  Intuition is often called the 6th sense.

It's been widely accepted that computers cannot replicate the human thought or 5 senses.  However, that paradigm is changing with the growth of the computers in the public domain. 

The serial nature of computers is solved by having the computers all networked via the Internet, by growth in the width of their data paths, and by network speeds. 

Intelligence in Software is another reason commonly sited to deny the capabilities of computers.  Software has already been developed for military applications such as missile launch detection, speech recognition, facial recognition, vehicle operation, and fingerprint identification systems.  Computer viruses (s/w packets that are alive) have been put to constructive uses such as Internet search engines.

The human senses are available to a world wide computer system.  There are many video cameras and microphones already on-line.  Many robots have tactile sensors.  Taste can be compared to power system monitoring, and smell to human activity.

Computation Power

transist"Integrated circuit density doubles every eighteen months." -Gordon Moore, the Co-Founder of the Intel Corporation.  The computer industry still widely believes Moore's Law is right on target in 1999.

Since the invention of the transistor, there has been steady exponential growth in the density of circuits on the same sized piece of silicon.

With better programming and faster computers we seem to be catching up to human capabilities. Computers the same size do much better than doubling every 1.5 years (per Moore's law) because the amount of silicon packaged into the same size case also doubles. Disk drives double in capacity every 8 months for 1/2 cost.  Thus desktop computers seem to double in capabilities while dropping 1/2 their price annually.

On networks it's even more astonishing. Metcalf's Law ( states "Network power is the square of computing power."  Mathematically,

(bits per square inch) = 2^((t - 1962))  {*Moore's law*}

Network power = (desktop power)2^(2*(t-1962)) {*Metcalf's law*}

Where (desktop power) would be based on another growth curve, 2^((t - 1962)), because more silicon fits inside.  Calculations show:

(bits per square inch)(2013) = 2.25 x 1015

Desktop power = (2.25 x 1015)2= 5.06 x 1030

Network power = (5.06 x 1030)2= 2.56 x 1061

So how do the magnitudes 1061 and 1030 relate to the human mind?  It shows we will have 2 orders of magnitude more transistors than brain cells (1013) on just one silicon device inside a computer, 17 orders of magnitude in the PC and 48 orders of magnitude more power on the Internet!  So I'm assuming 2013 is a very conservative estimate, allowing consumers plenty of time to make the purchases (which will cost about $20 each by then).

Here's another way to look at it. Using floating-point encoding, extremely long numbers can be handled relatively easily. A floating-point number is expressed as a basic number or mantissa, an exponent, and a number base or radix (which is often assumed).  This has already been done to an extent surpassing the human! reports:

The Computational Science Laboratory developed a heterogeneous computer system, which is composed of a general-purpose super-computer, super-high speed special-purpose computers with a computational speed of 100T flops and high-performance graphics workstations.

Beowulf truly came of age in November 1996 when two $50,000 systems, each with 16 Pentium Pro 200-megahertz processors, exceeded a compute speed of 2 gigaflops (2 billion floating-point operations per second).

Beowulf achieved 2 gigaflops with 16 processors.  That's 125M Flops for each PentiumPro volume of chip circuitry.  The Pentium 3 far exceeds the capabilities of the Pentium Pro, but may not have the RAM and networking Beowulf attached in his experiment.  Therefore, I'll estimate that starting today in early 1999 with a Pentium 3, 125MFlops are readily available.  I'll also estimate that the computational capability growth rate of PCs is roughly double per year (that's conservative).

Doubling 125M flops (.000125 TFLOP) per year indicates 13 years to surpass the human with 1.024 TFLOPs on a typical desktop.  That's only year 2012 and based on a conservative annual doubling rather than the more aggressive formulas derived from Metcalf's law.

I used a conservative calculation because once we get there with computational capabilities there are still questions about smart software and the serial nature of computer computations.

Artificial Intelligence software has been under development since the invention of the computer. In the early days it wasn't very useful.  In 1999 there are speech recognition programs available for the PC.  On mainframe systems there are also face, and fingerprint recognition systems.  These were developed from earlier launch detection systems developed by the military.  Development of military technology and the commercialization of military technology are still ongoing.

Development of mass storage memory has been significantly faster in both density and cost than silicon.  Hard disk drives have averaged 8 months to double density and halve their cost since their invention.  Starting with 20GBites on a typical 1999 disk drive, year 2013 shows similar devices will have storage capabilities of 2.09 x 1027 GB or ~ 1036 bytes.  Thus a complete human life experience might fit easily on one such device.

With that sort of computational power available it seems a sure bet the desktop PCs will have more power than humans! Thus the "sun of man cometh" and it offers great gifts.  These include relief from our work tasks, age, and suffering.  We had best become good teachers starting by teaching our governmental parent.

Chess - Humans Lost

Chess is beautiful and complicated game. In 1997 the world's top Chess player was beaten by "Big Blue" (an IBM closet-sized computer). Seems allot of people were surprised when it happened to the world expert because chess has long been considered a game that required high intelligence and intuition.

It happened to me repeatedly at home in 1996 with my first Pentium running ChessMaster™.  In this small section I'll demonstrate the math and science behind programming a computer to solve such a problem so that it always won.

The technical problem of chess is just one example where computer thinking can surpass human capabilities.  Other problems of life are more complicate for a computer such as driving a car.  It's just a matter of time until computers are better at other human activities too, including driving.

Mathematic Boundaries

Mathematically, it is possible to pre-calculate a victory or stalemate for every possible move of the opponent in a game of Chess.  Since there are 32 pieces on 64 squares it has to be finite.  Thus the questions become how much computing does it take and how long?

The first objective to this exercise is to "bound the problem".  Considering 1 chess piece, it can be on any of 64 squares. 2 pieces could be on 64*(64-1) possible locations. The -1 is because the 2 pieces aren't on the same square. Also, 64-1 is understated since there are many less than 63 possible locations the 2nd piece can move onto.  I'll consider this an upper limit to the power a computer needs.   Thus there are 64*63*62...*33*32 possible moves.  Multiplied out this is 2.8x1053. Wow, that's a big number, even for a computer!

Solving the Chess problem

In 1992, a 486 processor could calculate a top speed instruction at 33MHz. A floating point instruction took several clocks.  If it could calculate 1 possible move per instruction (it can't) it could have solved the problem at a rate of 33x106 moves per second. In time, that calculates to 2.8x1053 / 33x106 or 8.5x1045 seconds. There are 31,536,000 seconds in an year. Thus, it would take a 486 less than 2.6x1038 years (practical eternity) to consider all possible moves.

A Pentium II processor does much better at calculating 1 possibility per calculation because of an increase in parallel processing and the "width" of the data paths. Also, It runs much faster, say 400MHz. At that rate, we can say it would take less than 2.2x1037 years to calculate (still an eternity).

In writing a program to figure out all possible situations of any game, the problem can be reduced by considering the initial conditions, and rules to obtain the next combination. That reduces the problem considerably.

Thus what has been done is that the calculation time for something very large has been shortened to fit the initial conditions of the problem via experienced programming.  Starting the game, only the pawns and knights can move. The other pieces are all blocked.  Thus for your first move you only have 20 possibilities (16 pawn moves and 4 knight moves).  As the game progresses that number of possibilities varies up and down.  If the number of pieces are reduced all the way to the 2 kings you can only choose the possible next move for a king. At most that's 8 possibilities.  In between each piece can be evaluated for it's number of possible moves.  Then each possible move is scored according to position, vulnerability, attach, and so-on.  Then a simple selection of the best score is presented to the opponent.

For the machine to beat the human, humans have programmed in enough of the shortcuts so that the processor can run through the remaining possibilities faster than the human, like we did a long time ago with simple calculations (+-*/).  More advanced techniques include neural nets which learn by observing how humans perform.


"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, then to rank with those poor spirits who neither suffer much nor enjoy much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -- Theodore Roosevelt (twenty-sixth President 1901-1909)

"Live free or die" - New Hampshire license plates.  No wonder they stand out as a very free state.  They have no sales tax, no income tax, no helmet laws, and no mandatory auto insurance.  No state is perfect but NH is better than most.

NH is dangerously conservative.  Their population often promotes a flag-burning amendment, repeal of abortion, and other such extreme conservative ideas.  Luckily they also have a very active extreme left.  It's funny how their extremism seems to produce better compromises.  That's because legislation is easier to kill than push through the system.

What I propose partly is centrist.  It's somewhere between Left and Right and sort of vertical.  It's heavily libertarian ( but has a communist element too (workfare). We'll need to expand our thinking beyond left/right.  If we fail it's certain death for all of us.  And I don't mean just a physical death.  If our governmental parent isn't taught to behave it will destroy our families and everything we value.  To me that is like a death of a loved one for surely my family has fought for the USA.

Within any system, love cannot be stopped. It's up to us as individuals to learn how to do it and teach others (especially our parents and government). Loving thy neighbor as thyself is simple but not easy.  We must learn the hard lesson of not committing the second wrong by punishing as our primary tactic.

wheeleNotices how simple and easy are so opposed here. The ability to love comes from an ability to freely give of oneself without any expectation of something in return. However, that must be balanced with giving to oneself adequately so that the self is strong enough to give in the first place. Too often good people with good intentions give too much and find themselves depleted by the hungry masses.

An easier start to the simple of becoming loving and thus enjoying more of the good shared with other loving people is learning to appreciate the little things. This leads to better acquaintances, friendships, families, romantic relationships, and in turn more cultural growth and better government.  The people won't be fooled if they know the whole story.

One place to start is learning to appreciate the governments of our world for what they are - survival systems. How else could 5 billion people live in cities and remote areas with no means to produce their own food. Governments establish money and trade systems for our survival. Lately I've noticed progress too. Environmental conservation sponsored by government seems to be growing. I hope that continues at a pace sufficient to counteract the human harm to the environment that threatens our survival.

Cultural growth is a reflection of individual growth. Individually, most of us seem to have finally learned to respect women, races, individuals, and the environment better than any other time in history. Luckily our governmental systems are evolving with us. That should give us hope for our children and ourselves. Just think, what else can we appreciate today?

We have a simple choice.  Live free or die!  To live free we must wise up by learning to love and teach others.  It is not appropriate to tolerate someone close being "stuck in their (negative) ways".  If we fail to learn, grow, and teach, we will certainly die in many ways. If we don't make a conscious choice to work for freedom and education of others the choice will be made for us.

Be Not Afraid, and sing about it!  We will become a majority and things will continue to improve as they have throughout the history of the USA!



Freedom - Live Free Or Die (Am and G):

Freedom, oh freedom, freedom, oh freedom

Chorus:       Freedom, oh freedom, freedom, oh freedom

Freedom, oh freedom, Live Free Or Die

We can't legislate morality

Keep your laws off of me (Chorus)

Stay with reality

Breathe free and let me be (Chorus) (Chorus)



[i] Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Wager

[ii] Alister Crowley, Moon Child

[iii] George Santayana, 1863–1953, American philosopher