We protect them to keep their numbers up

Sometimes I fear that we will "protect" some of our endangered species to extinction rather than eat them or keep them as pets.

National Security and Religion

The crimes committed in the interests of National Security are often as bad as those committed in the name of religion.

History has demonstrated repeatedly that religion can be abused to commit crimes and hate against innocents and innocence. Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Muslims today show that this treachery against harmony and self actualisation is still possible.

History has also demonstrated that the bones of common decency and self responsibility can be sadistically snapped in the interest of National Security.

When I put the testing questions: "Is it justified?"; "If justified, will it fix the problem?" against the sorry lineup of National Security's foul ups, I find it wanting. Not always, just nearly always.

When those in power are virtually absolved of responsibility by the apathy and inactions of those who serve them (the sheeple) then an outcome of abuse is a natural evolution.

At the very least, I feel I am obliged to think about what is on the spoon that is attempting to ram down my throat.

Stem Cell research - a miracle from God

There's always another way to look at a problem.

The debate over stem cell research is being whipped to fluffy peaks by the mixer of religious zealotry. I can't help but be reminded of the joke where a preacher is sitting on top of his flooded house, about to be drowned by the rising water. He knocks back 3 rescue boats while crying out "No, I'm going to keep praying, God will save me!" When he drowns and comes face to face with God he asks "Why didn't you save me God?" God snorts and retorts "I sent you 3 boats."

Earth heating up faster than scientists thought

Scientists need to make a living too.

Why I am always filled with hope

Reading my blog it's easy to mistake scepticism for cynicism and passionate anger for ranting. It's how I write and it's not to everyone's taste.

An area that frequently gets under my skin is the lack-of-hope, doomsday scenarios that are mindlessly parroted in the media and by politicians. To the vast majority of these I say piffle!

For as long as I can remember, humans have found a way around problems by invention, method, culture or attitude. It's why we're at the top of the tree. It's why I am always filled with hope.

There will always be chicken littles, Machiavellis and the ignorant. There will always be forward thinkers, problem solvers and persisters. I've made my choice.

That's my point made. The rest of this post concerns an example.

As an example, here's an article on an Australian inventor Max Whisson who has invented a device to extract water from wind (it's by Phillip Adams) :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21123007-12272,00.html
or http://tinyurl.com/ytrdcu

Here's some highlights that give me great joy:

"It involves getting water out of the air. And he’s not talking about cloud-seeding for rain. Indeed, he just might have come up with a way of ending our ancient dependence on rain, that increasingly unreliable source. "

"And that’s not all. As well as the apparently empty air providing us with limitless supplies of water, Max has devised a way of making the same “empty” air provide the power for the process. I’ve been to his lab in Western Australia. I’ve seen how it works."

"The secret of Max’s design is how his windmills, whirring away in the merest hint of a wind, cool the air as it passes by. Like many a great idea, it couldn’t be simpler – or more obvious. But nobody thought of it before."

That's the phrase that always makes me happy - "nobody thought of it before". Love it!

I harbour hope that one day someone (maybe me or you) will work out a way to make it uneconomical for the media to make money from misery or politicians to hoard power through fear. On that day I hope to hear someone say "Wow, I'm surprised that no-one thought of that before."

The U.N. signals that things will be different now with a new leader

When a system is bloated and ineffective, change comes incrementally and painfully. Sometimes a complete change is needed to effect real change.

Why wouldn't we trust our leaders

More disturbing than those who see only the back of the person in front, is those who see the door and still enter.

Why use force to steal my freedom?

If my activities cause no harm to anyone else then why is it anyone else's business?

My owning guns does absolutely nothing to harm anyone else. As soon as my *actions* harm someone else then I deserve retaliation. I deserve to have force enacted upon me because I have made the choice to use force.

I own my life, I make my own choices and I take full responsibility for how I choose to live.

When people such as yourself expect the government to use force to make me behave how you want, then you are stealing my freedom and stealing your own freedom. If you give power to the government to take my property and liberty at the point of a gun then you are personally responsible for the stealing of my freedom.

When you give the government power to enforce *your* view you are ignoring the fact that successive governments will still have that power. These successive governments may have a different view to yours but by then it's too late, you've already given your freedom away.

If I do not harm anyone then it is morally wrong for me to have my freedoms stolen.

This is the crux of my argument against what you want to impose on me. After the next paragraph I'll give some examples. If you're not in the mood for large blocks of text then feel free to ignore them.

=====================================

Examples:

Smoking Bans

A large number of people are against smoking for health reasons and because they simply don't like the smell of tobacco. Instead of steering clear of businesses that allow smoking or letting the owner know that they are not giving them their money, they get the government to pass laws. The effect of these laws is that a private business owner on his/her property does not have the freedom to choose how to run their business. Smokers, who are choosing to use a legal drug, are also denied the freedom to frequent businesses of their choice.

If a business owner chooses not to obey these laws then he/she will be fined. If they don't pay the fine then they will ultimately be taken by force and incarcerated. People who support smoking bans are supporting this use of force.

The government now has the power to ban activities on private property in the interests of health. The critical question is now that they have this power, what else will they use it for? Alcohol? High sugar foods? high fat foods? This may sound a bit extreme but consider that the US had Prohibition, that high sugar foods are getting removed from schools and that New York city is trying to put through legislation to ban serving of certain high fat foods.

Anti-terror laws, secret arrests and national ID cards.

One of the most insidious tools of government at this point in time is the fear of terrorism. This is being horribly milked to destroy many of the freedoms that we have. People who support these draconian laws support: the government deciding *who* is a terrorist; ASIO being able to secretly arrest people without charge for seven days and penalising anyone who mentions that this has happened; tracking of our movements; invading our privacy.

Where do you realistically think this erosion of freedoms is going to stop? The UK currently has 14.3 million (yes, million) CCTV cameras monitoring their streets. Within 5 years they will be tracking (via number plate recognition) the movements of *all* vehicles in major urban centres. They are introducing an ID card that will be compulsory by 2008 with the current plan being that *everyone* will be fingerprinted.

Justification of income.

Currently in Victoria, if you are caught with an amount of cash $20,000 or greater and can't explain it to the satisfaction of the authorities then it can be confiscated until you do. Banks are also required to report transcations of $10,000+ to the government. The questions to ask are: where will this stop?; how low will the levels go?; who else will end up being responsible for reporting this sort of information?

The problem is that all these laws *sound* so good. People buy the pollywaffle that they will be safer and life will be better. The question that never seems to be asked is "What is the cost of believing these lies?"

What lies are we being repeatedly told?

One of the mainstays of successful propaganda is the repetition of lies until they are held to be the truth. Even when there is doubt about the message it can still be treated as truth because a critical mass of people cannot be bothered to listen critically.

Those of us who are prepared to listen carefully hold a massive advantage. In order to tell a lie repeatedly it has to be revealed. Once a lie is revealed then it can be assessed for what it is.

There another advantage in that an organisation that has lied in the past can be assessed skeptically. When this organisation starts to spin or repeat a message then the ears can go up and open out. The message may turn out to be the truth but when the lie is caught we become forewarned and forearmed.

When will the do-gooders get their snivelling noses out of my life?

There are many arguments for why people should be able to dictate how I live my life in "the interests of society" and "for the greater good". Google them up and make up your own mind.

My mind is already made up and falls squarely on the side of letting me decide how I can live my life. If I don't harm anyone then I am entitled to live my life in whatever style I want. I can take responsibility for my life and my decisions. I don't need do-gooders using the power of government to force me to live my life according to their ideals.

A classic example recently was an argument with a non-smoking family member who supports the Australian smoking bans. I argued that she should be supporting the choice of business owners to allow smoking in their establishments. I also argued that she should support my choice to smoke in these establishments. My argument was based on supporting her freedom by supporting those of others.

I can't have freedom without giving that same freedom to others.

I maintained that she was using the government to support her point of view and force me to comply with her morals and choices. When I asked "do you support the government telling people what they can do on their own property and own business" she considered it. Her answer revealed the truth - "No, I don't think they should have that power except for something that is unhealthy like smoking".

"...except..." - there's the grubby moral lever that these do-gooders use to force their agenda. As soon as I hear "except" or "but" then I know I'm arguing with someone who wants to foist their ideals on me by force.

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that when you give away these powers you seldom get them back?
Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that these powers can be used against them when the government they want is replaced by the government they don't want?
If I make a choice and no-one else is hurt then what business is it of those who disagree with my choice?

To paraphrase Matthew 7:1-5 - "Fix up your own life and until then, piss off and leave me alone".

Free Speech rot setting seed

This story from the ABC (here in Oz) gives me no comfort about the sanctity of Free Speech in my country - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1730338.htm

The story is about Sandra Kanck, a South Australian Minister, who gave details on suicide methods in Parliament. As stated in the article:

"A motion to delete a speech by South Australian Democrats MP Sandra Kanck from the electronic version of Hansard was carried by one vote in the state's Legislative Council yesterday."

Now we have censorship of Free Speech at the highest level supported by the law makers. Reading the article it implies that the non-electronic version will not be edited. The version most accessible to the average person (via the net) will now reflect what the politicians want the truth to look like.

As slow as the sun, as fast as a sunrise...Seed the weeds and dance in the rot.

Bugger 'em

I’ve had it with pussyfooting around on the issue of guns. I like to shoot competitions, I like to hunt and I like guns. If someone doesn’t agree with me then they can go jump. I support 100% the concept of doing whatever we like, as long as it doesn’t harm another person. Guess what? My sport does not harm anyone else.

We’ve all heard the tired old blather that leaks from the humourless mouths of the gun control movement. The basic point that is often missed is that these people want to spend my money to make me do what they want. They want to control how I live my life. It doesn’t matter what words you wrap around “control”, it’s still offensive.

Let’s call a gun a gun. They are a weapon, a tool, a machine of desire, a piece of art, a testament to human mechanical ingenuity. Like a barrel that has seen too many rounds, I find that my patience is worn out with close-minded people who only want to point out the negatives of my free choice.

If I want to use a tool to propel a projectile at a target and measure my eye-hand coordination against someone else then I deserve that freedom. Humankind has been involved in this activity since we competed to see who the best rock thrower was. If I choose to use a tool to eliminate feral animals or hunt animals for food then I deserve that freedom. Our ancestors didn’t stalk wild lentils and quiver in fear at the sabre-toothed tofu, they killed animals to survive.

If you don’t like guns then don’t use them. Leave me alone to live my life. Take your advice and bugger off!