Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

February  2003


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: 04 Feb 2003 16:57:21 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 21:52, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote (in part) to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Another ingredient in this mix is power generation, and a replacement
> > for heating oils on the Eastern seaboard. One aspect of this may be
> > through the return to nuclear power for power generation.
>
> Home/facility heating is one area in which BTU energy is absolutely
> necessary, regardless of its source. Electricity for this purpose when
> petroleum or natural gas derivatives are the source for generation, is the
> most costly form. You are correct, nuclear power is far more energy
> efficient, and environmentally cleaner than fosil fuel generation of
> electric power. Hyrdro generated electric power is also a cheaper and
> cleaner alternative, but not available in most areas of the country, e.g.:
> the midwest, southwest, and other areas where water drop conditions do not
> exist.
>
> There are of course, cost effective ways to produce clean and sufficient
> electrical power (non-heating) through the use of wind and solar
> applications. It is flabbergasting that many of the large petroleum
> companies are in the process of buying or starting their own solar
> photovoltic production, which in my judgement will keep these devices in a
> price range that is cost prohibitive to many. BP, Shell and Chevron-Texico
> are some of the new players. Nevertheless, the retail price for these
> devices have dropped somewhat over the last decade, but the cost per amp
at
> 12VDC is still running at about $100 per amp. Hopefully these large
> monopolies of power will not further monopolize the solar photovoltic
> modules, the more competition that exists, the lower the retail cost will
> be.
>
> The quality and performance of solar modules has risen dramatically as
well.
> The moduls are smaller, and produce more electric power than ever before.
> It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power at
> 12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that much.
> Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to
mount
> on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
> restrictive.
>

The way to get the most out of solar is to convert as much as possible
to DC as opposed to AC. Too much is lost in the conversion form DC
(produced by solar) to AC (standard housing power). I've looked a lot at
the "off-grid" houses, and they've made substantial progress, though
still too expensive for Joe Sixpack (even Joe AverageDoctor/Lawyer).

> > I predict increased prices at the pump and the house (for heating),
> > increased prices for airline travel, and since transportation is the
> > lion's share of the consumption, an overall increase in cost of
> > transported goods.
>
> Transportation costs might become even more competitive due to
restructuring
> of the major airlines, including bankrupt carrier United Airlines.
> Contental, Delta, Northwest and United are in the process of spinning off
> portions of their operations into regional carriers, and as in the case of
> United, competing with the Jet Blues, Southwest and other economy
carriers.
> United for examples has ordered a fleet of smaller, more fuel effient
> aircraft for their proposed spin off into two companies. So, even if
> petroleum costs increase, it will be partially offset by smaller, more
fuel
> efficient aircraft and higher passenger loads filling up these aircraft.
The
> pilots Unions are certainly not happy with this direction and are poised
to
> challenge it, but for the airlines there simply is no way to operate
> competitively in the current market without challenging some of the start
up
> regional economy carriers, whos wages for pilots are about one-half of
that
> of the major carriers mentioned above.
>
> The above restructuring is likely going to take a while, but by 2005 the
> airline opportunities available to customers will look a lot different
than
> it does today.

IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
maintenance cost savings).

Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
than jumbos.

One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.

>
> > I figure a 25% reduction (minimum) in US demand in the oil market in the
> > next decade. This will bring about a new era in this field. The effects
> > of this will be far reaching, global in scale. Such a reduction is not
> > as far fetched as it sounds.
>
> No, it isn't. That is as long as free-market conditions prevail, and
> monopolization isn't seized by the major petroleum cabal. As I mentioned
> above concerning solar electric generation, the prices will continue to
drop
> as long as those producing such products are not taken over by the large
> energy companies. It is practical right now for the average size home to
> have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now (in
most
> areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of modifications
to
> such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking
devices.

Yes, it does. Nearly a wholesale change of the wiring and devices.
Doable, though.

> > Mandating that government vehicles be E85 vehicles where currently
> > gasoline powered, and government diesel vehicles switch to bio-diesel
> > can represent an estimated two million barrels/day reduction in
> > transportation use of oil -- about 15% of our current total usage.
>
> Could be much more costly, since it would require nationwide availability
> for distribution for only a very limited market, unless that is, consumers
> also begin to purchase such vehicles.

Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
already here in Boise. :)

The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)

My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".

Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
landfill uh .. filling.

> > Conveniently, such a switch would provide a starting point for better
> > economies of scale in these fields, without mandating what the private
> > citizen does. As E85 and bio-diesel powered vehicles become dominant in
> > the marketplace, it is not out of the question to see our dependence on
> > oil shrink annually.
>
> I know Ford has been working on a hybrid automobile, and the technology
will
> come in due course. Distribution changes will be costly however, since
right
> now it is not available over a wide scale, and until that matter is
> resolved, consumer interest will be very limited. Probably initially only
> local commuter type vehicles for use in a city or limited geographical
range
> where such fuel and support would be available. Once the availability has
> spread over the entire country, then consumers would most likely start
> really taking a look at this.

Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)

Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
working to get caught up).

We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
resource too. :)

> > If the mandate on government use of E85 and bio-diesel were implemented
> > in the next 3-5 years, we could see that 15%+ net drop in oil demand in
> > by 2013-5. I'd predict an additional drop of 8-12 points in the
> > following 7 years. Thus, if this were done we could expect a net
> > reduction of 23-30% in US oil demand in the next two decades.
>
> Certainly possible, although under the current "central planning"
government
> approach, it likely isn't going to be as rosy as you predict. Gerald Ford
> declared "Energy Independence" back in the mid-1970s as his goal. Well,
that
> never panned out. The government has even mandated fuel efficient cars in
> terms of percentage of production, that too largely failed as Americans
> starting buying up SUVs and light trucks that were largely exempt from
such
> regulation fuel efficiency regulations.

I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
sold at half off, you can by twice as much.

>
> > Some easily visible effects would be the ability to completely eliminate
> > Middle East oil imports. With positive relations between us and S.
> > American countries that we are currently importing from (Mexico,
> > Venezuela), it would not be out of the question to export of these
> > technologies to those countries, as well as Canada and the UK.
>
> Mid East oil production is most likely to dramatically decrease anyway,
> regardless of the outcome of the Iraq thing. As I've mentioned before,
> Russia will be soon producing more petroleum than Saudi Arabia, and
> logically will become the European dealer of choice to supply most of
> eastern and central Europe, while British and Norweigan sources will serve
> western European regions. I easily could invision of series of oil
pipelines
> coming from Russia into various regional hubs throughout eastern and
central
> Europe. The mideast is not really a great location to be for serving
Europe
> or north and south American markets. Also, the mideast is political
> unstable, and regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi adventure, it likely
> will continue to be volitile for several decades. In fact, probably the
only
> areas in which the mid-east might be copetitive in the intermediate term,
is
> south Asia and east Africa. Indonesia, Malaysia and China will no doubt
> become the centres for serving east Asia.

I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.

>
> > As the cost of alternatives
> > to an oil economy become cheaper than oil, the third world countries
> > will adopt these in higher quantities for two reasons.
> > First, cost. Second, after witnessing the boon to the economies of the
> > currently industrialized worlds, and the decreasing importance on
> > product from a volatile part of the world, they will learn the lessons
> > we learned the hard way; and not repeat them.
>
> We have technologies now that can greatly reduce the amount of electrical
> generation dependence upon petroleum. Again, unfortunately, the petroleum
> giants are grabbing a greater and greater monopoly over such products and
> devices. So, in the short term, this might be a mixed bag. But the real
> impediment for third world developing nations (such as the Philippines) is
> still the initial cost involved in utilizing such technological
> advancements. Most filipinos don't use even remotely close, per capita,
the
> electrical consumption of the average US household, although the cost
> ofelectic power, per killowatt is 2nd in east Asia, after Japan. Most of
> that cost is due to ineffiency in power generation, and a lot of lost
power
> through antiquated systems. So, for a filipino to go "solar power", the
> cost for even the small fraction of wattage used compared to America, the
> cost for set up would still be in the $2,000 - $4,000 range. Entirely
> prohibitive for the majority of the population here. If pricing were to
> drop dramatically however, which could happen under competitive
conditions,
> then it COULD become feasible and a viable alternative.

I don't see solar as a net win for many many years to come, likely
decades. Now, fuel cells, however, that is the next technology I see for
electric grid deployment. It can be done per-unit, be it house or
commercial building, or even apartments.

In fact, most people have not realized the synergistic effect of fuel
cells and ethanol. Most currently proposed fuel cell hybrids use
gasoline as the fuel. Dirty, large, inefficient and expensive.

However, an Ethanol powered fuel cell delivers good power generation
chemically (no combustion) and as such it outputs H20. Gee what ashame.
;)

In fact, current projections for an Ethanol fuel cell powered car is ~81
MPG --of ethanol a renewable cheap fuel.

> I want to point out too, that such systems are not something that power
> companies might find useful or attractive in their current state. 12VDC is
> not cost effective, before that is, it is converted to 120VAC or higher.
> Transmission of 12VDC loses a lot of power over very short distances in
> transmission. The technology is more suited for individual structures,
such
> as homes, or office buildings, than for commercial power generation and
> distribution to a community.

Another reason I love it. Decentralizing the power grid. What could be
more libertarian. ;) Seriously though, the more decentralized these
things are, the less likelihood of a monopoly, and the more secure we
are from "terrorist" attacks. It is a good trend. After the rolling
blackouts in CA, I understand *many* places are looking at local power
generation -- as in per building. A rooftop could be covered in solar
generation, combined with fuel cell power generation (powered by
Ethanol) to provide 80-100+% of the power a building needs, depending on
it's size.

It should provide to be quite economical when considered as a complete
system. depending on the costs to convert from Ethanol to power, a
building could in theory generate at full load (or 80%) overnight, and
sell the resulting surplus to the power grid; recouping costs.

Anyway, IMO, it holds a *lot* of promise, and I suspect will not be able
to be quashed by the PetroCos of the world. The technology is to easy,
to well known, and does not bear the costs that come with petro
production. It is also one big positive feedback loop for much of it's
growth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:50:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power at
> > 12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that
much.
> > Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to
mount
> > on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
> > restrictive.

You replied:
> The way to get the most out of solar is to convert as much as possible
> to DC as opposed to AC. Too much is lost in the conversion form DC
> (produced by solar) to AC (standard housing power). I've looked a lot at
> the "off-grid" houses, and they've made substantial progress, though
> still too expensive for Joe Sixpack (even Joe AverageDoctor/Lawyer).

I don't think that they are. I'm not the "AverageDoctor/Lawyer", and
it works for me. It is NOT practical in most cases to assume a
majority of dependence upon 12VDC, although it that could happen, it
would be nice. In reality, small things demand the use of conversion
to 120VAC. These small things keep the inverter turned on to supply
those necessities. The inverter itself takes power to convert such
energy from DC to AC, so in all likelihood, the inverter will be
working anyway, even when using DC energy.

So, find an inverter that is less a costly drain upon DC, such as
Trace inverters which in idle mode have a negligible drain, and even
when supplying direct AC, the loss of power is also minimal. Some
inverters are ridiculously expensive in terms of loss of power, but
Trace and others have made substantial advances in eliminating much of
that amperage drain. You can also manually adjust Trace Inverters to
the minimum pull to spring them from idle mode to full power mode.
Inverters no medium for this. They either supply AC or they choose not
to, depending upon the setting you initiate. So, if a freezer or
refrigerator kick in, the inverter shifts to deliver AC. If a 5-watt
light bulb is turned on, it might not be of sufficient amperage to
kick on the inverter. The key is to configure your home to 12VDC
lighting, and only keep necessary appliances running the triggering
process for the AC inverter to switch on.

RE: Airline restructuring, you wrote:
> IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
> carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
> is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
> you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
> ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
> planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
> mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
> maintenance cost savings).

I own stock in Delta, Continental, Northwest, United and American. All
of these airlines are addressing the issue of competing with the
smaller discount (economy) airlines EXCEPT American which is doing
next to nothing in that regard. American is holding out in dealing
with the labour unions, believing that United and US Airways will go
titts up and be broken up in the bankruptcy courts. This of course,
doesn't address the fundamental issue of labour costs exceeding 50%
more than the economy airlines have to pay. In other words, while
United and others have reached concessions for labour reductions,
American by and large is only operating on the basis of $2 billion in
available cash which is being depleted rapidly in operational
expenses. Not a rosy picture.

Believe it or not, United seems to be more forward looking than most
of the rest. If they can survive bankruptcy, they are looking at
purchasing a fleet of much smaller capacity and fuel efficient
aircraft in a new "company" under the parent company to compete head
to head with the economy carriers. If such restructuring is permitted
to go forward, a huge percentage of United's schedule will be diverted
to the newer, more efficient company. Both Continental and Delta are
also slowly working into this restructuring process.

> Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
> angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
> than jumbos.

I agree completely. Which is why American Airlines, which got hit
pretty hard in 9/11, and is itself looking at probably filing Chapter
11 status in the next 12 months, ought to now start looking into
spinning off a subsidiary "low cost" economy carrier of its own. This
is the world's largest airline, and they still seem to be counting on
the current status quo to somehow prevail. Again, the ONLY thing
right now, keeping them out of filing Chapter 11, is the $2 billion is
liquid cash (all liabilities) that they currently have on hand.

> One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.

You got that right. Several of the airlines are trying to work out
routing whereby not to waste their resources competing on non
profitable routes. So far, the SEC and other Federal agencies are
crying foul! If left alone, in most cases anyway, the airlines could
most likely work out such compromises amongst themselves, outside of
any government intervention at all.

I previously wrote:
> It is practical right now for the average size home to
> > have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now (in
most
> > areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of
modifications to
> > such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking
devices.

And, you replied:
> Yes, it does. Nearly a wholesale change of the wiring and devices.
> Doable, though.

Well, in my home in Idaho, I have several two electrical boxes
available in every room. One with brown panels that accept 12VDC, and
white panels that are fitted to 120VAC. It's easy to do that with a
new home, when such plans are already fitted into the blueprints. It
is far more difficult to retrofit a used house that is designed around
the use of 120VAC. That gets both messy, and expensive. The white
panelled boxes are directly from the AC inverter, and the brown ones
directly from the DC battery source.

In automobile fuel restructuring, you wrote:
> Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
> stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
> rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
> remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
> make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
> availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
> already here in Boise. :)

I believe it is possible, that is, for the standard to be made on the
basis for a free market choice by consumers. I only had the problem
with YOU mandating that the government enter this picture by defining
standards for "government" vehicles. But I also have a problem with
the petroleum industry monopolizing such standards, as such. They are
just as big a liability to free markets (particularly when they are
working in tandem with government regulation) as the government is
itself.

Let me just regress for a moment here. If BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
and other corporate energy producers can monopolize the solar power
market, as they are now trying to do, then they still make a free
market solution to electrical energy largely dependent upon their own
goals -- which will always be "petroleum"! They will artificially
keep such alternative energy prices VERY HIGH to protect their main
strategy of selling petroleum or fossil fuel products!

If you doubt what I am saying, check out the ownership over WHO has
bought up the production of solar voltic companies just in the last
five years! There are still some independent companies that are out
there, but they are striking in terms of corporate mergers and
buyouts, mainly because the technology is threatening their
(petroleum) interests. It's interesting to watch this shit happen.

Actually, solar electric technology isn't that new. On the bright
side, emerging markets in China, Japan, and Taiwan may really throw a
wrench into this mix, and actually make solar electric power very
price competitive with existing electrical generation.

> The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
> been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
> trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
> monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
> when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
> than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
> terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)

You'll have to explain this more to me. I've been gone far too long as
it is, and I don't honestly know what is being shown on the show room
floors these days from Ford or GM. I own Ford, but not GM. I've
always been a Ford man.

> My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
> basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
> be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
> the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
> to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
> midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
> success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".

I see your point, as such. But I don't understand the technology at
all. Point conceded. What will be the trade off, if any, in the cost
per vehicle?

> Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
> produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
> progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
> large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
> landfill uh .. filling.

Sounds exciting. To get the corporate producers of vehicles to sign
on, will take some doing however, no doubt. To reconfigure a
production line along such rapid changes, would require some basis for
a profit, or payoff in the end. I've followed Ford's exploratory
vehicles to a point, but they have also lost ground in such places as
Norway, which refused to give Ford tax-exempt status for the
production of such vehicles. Of course, Norway is a oil producing
nation. This has GOT to be a fundamental question, e.g.: Are the
interests of corporate petroleum producers of such a nature that
prohibit the economical benefits to consumers from choosing
alternative and more cost effective trade-offs to current technology?
Can and do such interests affect the nature of what governments
ultimately decide to do?

I only use Ford as an example here, because as I said, I've always
been a "Ford man". I haven't seen any innovative strategies from GM
and haven't seen any of them for four decades, since the time I was
old enough to take notice. Ford has always been the automotive
innovator in both design and technology.

I can't believe I am using Liberty Northwest as a free advertisement
for the Ford Motor Company! Sorry, everyone!

However, look back a few decades. Who produced the first American
Sports Car? The Ford Thunderbird (1955), or the GM reaction (1956),
the Corvette?

I love this! This really gets my mind off politics for a while!

Who, produced the FIRST midsized automobile? The Ford Fairlane
(1962), or the GM's reactionary version with the Chevelle (1963).

And, what about economy models? Ford's Falcon (1960) and GM's
reactionary response with the "Corvere" (sp) or whatever it's spelling
is.

What about Ford's introduction of the Mustang (1965). The first
innovative sports car "family version" vehicle opening a broad new
market. GM's version, again a year later, the Camero, (1966).

What has GM ever innovated in the last four decades? They were on the
brink of bankruptcy during the 1980s, losing billions of dollars. Ford
wasn't doing so bad, with introductions of the Sable, Grenada, and
entering the SUV market well ahead of GM or Chrysler's wildest
imaginations!

So, why am I a Ford man, you ask? I have no clue. I just believe they
will get out of this current stinking mess before any other US
automaker can come up with the technological and design answers.

[Frank reverts to a more objective position...]

> Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
> reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)
> Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
> called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
> and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
> options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
> and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
> working to get caught up).

Why am I not surprised.

> We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
> McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
> cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
> resource too. :)

Yea, you right. I do have to come back and see some of this. I might
not be all that happy either in what I see, discounting the smell from
burgers from tailpipe emissions. Got to believe that Ford is likely on
top of this new technology however. I've got my money riding on it
nevertheless.

> I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
> fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
> cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
> as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
> sold at half off, you can by twice as much.

Perhaps. But not always the case. When economic concerns are in place,
people want to drive between A-Z. What is the most economical way to
arrive at such a destination? Many Americans are less concerned with
such choices, and frankly, don't care. I've noticed that the latest
models don't care either. Since GM's Geo Metro (about 54 mpg), such
options have largely disappeared in recent years. The Metro is gone,
so as the Chevrolet Sprint, which also enjoyed mpg figures in the 50
mpg range.

Admittedly, both Ford and Chrysler did not pursue the mpg issue as
aggressively as GM once did. It does appear however that even GM has
thrown in the towel on that as well. When you que in on mpg on a
search engine to find the best mpg available in standard internal
combustion engines, the best you can come up with days is the low
40's.

I haven't been able to find one single automobile, marketed in the US,
using standard internal combustion technology that gets very far ahead
of 40 mpg. I do know, that in Japan, several models are still
available manufactured by Suzukki, owned in large part by GM. However,
the absence of such vehicles in America seems to suggest that there is
no market for fuel economy per se. The Geo Metro is gone. The Chevy
Sprint is gone, and with that, fuel economy as an issue has largely
disappeared.

This says a lot, to me at least, as far as American's concerned over
energy consumption is a basic issue at all.

> I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
> base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
> highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.

I do. Russia's reserves haven't even been quantified yet. We simply
have little scientific information that would suggest that Russia
isn't sitting on the highest petroleum reserves on the entire plant.
Russia will be a key player in energy, and WILL surpass Saudi Arabia's
capacity by the year 2005, or perhaps much sooner than even that.

This is also true of the north slope of Alaska! Which was largely
locked up by the former Bush Administration. This is also pure bull
shit, and I can't believe any American would support this dependence
upon imported oil! This includes, the same Bush Administration locking
up exploration and production of petroleum on the west coast
continental shelf! I have read and heard of the impact that the
colossal resources on the North Slope in Alaska even exceeds that of
Saudi Arabia.

So, your figures don't match, Bill. If Russia has substantial
petroleum reserves that exceed Saudi Arabia, and the Alaskan North
Slope exceeds the capacity of Saudi Arabia, then why? I ask, is
mid-east oil such a "burning concern" (no pun intended)?

Anyway, even if the echo-frecks get their way, and global warming is
really talking place, then Russia will be the chief beneficiary of
that trend, since Siberia will also warm up, and create thereby a new
tremendous resource for the planet in terms of such things as
agriculture, and growth in forest products as such! I don't see any
dooms day scenario hanging over the planet in such cases.

> I don't see solar as a net win for many many years to come, likely
> decades. Now, fuel cells, however, that is the next technology I see for
> electric grid deployment. It can be done per-unit, be it house or
> commercial building, or even apartments.

Solar power is already here, and as I've already stated, is
achievable. The cost of homes is currently around $80k. So, a $10,000
investment in alternative solar power is already an option for each
and every homebuilder, and home buyer.

Problem is, that few, precious choices are made in the market place
today. Mostly because of government building codes, and regulations.

I'm sending this now. Getting late here. Please do get back with me on
this.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Anannaki?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:39:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank M. Reichert <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:49 PM
Subject: Anannaki?

> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Dan Gookin...
>
> Dan Gookin wrote:
> > > What do I think? OH SHIT! Is what I think. We are in trouble and it's
> > > gonna take the Ananaki to either kill us all off or get us out of it.
>
> You replied:
> > HEY! Leave the Anannaki out of this! They are a peaceful, freedom loving
> > people!
>
> And who, for those of us who don't have a clue, are the Anannaki people?
> Either you, or Dan, might likely enlighten me and others who might have
some
> questions as to what this is all about. Suppose I could look it up myself
on
> a search engine, but this does seem to be off the wall.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Senate vote on Total Information Awareness program
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:18:26 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: January 24, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians applaud Senate vote to strip funding
for Total Information Awareness system

WASHINGTON, DC -- A vote by the Senate on Thursday to block funding
for
the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program is a victory for
ordinary Americans and a setback for the surveillance state,
Libertarians say.

"Score one for Americans' privacy and freedom," said Geoffrey Neale,
national chair of the Libertarian Party. "Now that politicians have
been put on the defensive over this un-American spy scheme, it's time
to step up the pressure and bury it once and for all."

A proposal by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, to halt funding for the Total
Information Awareness (TIA) project passed the Senate by voice vote on
Thursday. The massive public surveillance system – spearheaded by
former Navy Rear Adm. John Poindexter – has come under scathing attack
by civil liberties groups and editorial pages around the country since
it was unveiled last year.

TIA would create a centralized database of every American's electronic
transactions, such as credit card purchases, bank transactions, travel
data, drivers license information, educational and health records, e-
mails and phone calls. Eventually that information would be linked
with
biometric data such as face recognition technology and digital
fingerprints, and provided instantly to law enforcement to detect
patterns of terrorist activity, the government says.

"TIA is the electronic equivalent of ordering a 24-hour police
stakeout on every American, even though they're not suspected of doing
anything wrong," Neale said. "This is the kind of behavior that we
expect from dictatorships, not democracies."

Thursday's vote indicates the government is reacting to the outcry
from
Libertarians and others who have been lobbying against TIA, Neale
said.

"In November, the Libertarian Party joined an emergency coalition of
more than 30 organizations to try to scuttle the project," he noted.
"We signed a letter drafted by the Electronic Privacy Information
Center that urged the Senate to adopt an amendment to the Homeland
Security Act that would have halted the program.

"Unfortunately, the Senate ignored us, and Bush signed the bill into
law on Nov. 25. Obviously the public's continued input has changed
some
minds on Capitol Hill, so now it's time to put the pressure on."

The Senate's action is only a partial victory, Neale noted.

"Because the measure was tacked onto a Senate spending bill, it must
survive a House-Senate conference committee and a final vote in both
houses before being presented to President Bush," he said.

"Wyden's proposal also contains a lot of fine print. For example,
instead of killing TIA outright, it requires the Pentagon to issue a
report explaining the program and assessing its impact on civil
liberties. And it could still be deployed in cases involving 'national
security,' which was the excuse for creating this monstrosity in the
first place.

"But this domestic surveillance system can't be reformed; it must be
removed, period. And we won't rest until that happens."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of
2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:25:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com

Greetings everyone!

Ron Wittig just published this on another list. This issue is and will be a
hot one. I am sending this out html format since it might lose its appeal
otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Frank
Are you ready for this.Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Wanda Benton
To: PRC DigestSent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:43 AMSubject: RED FLAG RED
FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in
House)

-----Original Message-----
From: Barb Hall
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:47 PM

I think we need to jump on this one. Get this stopped
NOW. (Barbara)

Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in
House)

HR 124 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session


H. R. 124

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of
handguns.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A BILL

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of
handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration
Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM TO APPLY
IN ANY STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HANDGUN LICENSING AND
REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns

`(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for
the licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed,
or controlled in the United States, which shall include a method
for easily retrieving information sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of a State to which this subsection applies who
owns, possesses, or controls a handgun; and

`(B) the handgun.

`(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to own, possess, or control
a handgun in a State to which this subsection applies unless the
person--

`(A) is licensed to do so by the system established pursuant to
paragraph (1); and

`(B) has registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agency.

`(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in a State if there is in
effect a certification by the Attorney General that the State has
in effect a system for the licensing and registration of handguns
owned, possessed, or controlled in the State that--

`(1) includes a method for easily retrieving information
sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of the State who owns, possesses, or controls a
handgun in the State; and

`(B) the handgun; and

`(2) at a minimum, imposes criminal penalties on any person who
owns, possesses, or controls a handgun in the State, and who--

`(i) has not completed training in firearms safety;

`(ii) is not licensed by the State to possess a handgun; or

`(iii) has not registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agency.

`(c) A certification under subsection (b) with respect to a State
shall have no force or effect on or after the date the Attorney
General finds, after an opportunity for a hearing on the record,
that the State does not have in effect the system described in
subsection (b).

`(d) The Attorney General shall prescribe such regulations as may
be necessary to carry out this section.'.

(b) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following:

`(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a)(2) shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not less than 15 years, or both. The
court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed under
this paragraph or impose a probationary sentence under this
paragraph.'.

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
amended by adding at the end the following:

`931. Licensing and registration of handguns.'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
apply to conduct engaged in after the 2-year period that begins
with the date of the enactment of this Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and
Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:32:12 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Probably the same as one that was introduced in the last congress and the
one before, and the one before that, and ....

My guess? It goes to a committee and basically disappears. I wouldn't
worry too much unless the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert. They
generally have people "on the ground," so to speak, who know and talk to
the people who run things. Generally, the "leadership" people know that
something like this would practically get them lynched by the membership if
it appeared on the floor because the membership would get swamped with
calls when that happened. So the best thing for them to do is say it needs
to go through half a dozen committees starting with the committee with the
most pro-gun chairman. My guess is that after it hits the first committee,
it never even gets scheduled for hearings.

More likely is one to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban that's due to expire
this year (or is it next year?) That one actually has a chance and if it
gets out of the House, I'd say odds are about 70% that it'll pass the
Senate. Then, we've got a Pres. who's promised to sign it. Like it or
not, I can't see him breaking that promise.

Lowell
At 14:25 01/25/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings everyone!
>
>Ron Wittig just published this on another list. This issue is and will be
>a hot one. I am sending this out html format since it might lose its
>appeal otherwise.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
> Are you ready for this.Ron
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:wlbenton@salemnet.com>Wanda Benton
>To: <mailto:prc-digest@freedom.org>PRC DigestSent: Thursday, January 23,
>2003 7:43 AMSubject: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and
>Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Barb Hall
>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:47 PM
>
>
>
> I think we need to jump on this one. Get this stopped
> NOW. (Barbara)
>Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>HR 124 IH
>
>
>108th CONGRESS
>
>1st Session
>
>
>
>H. R. 124
>To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.
>
>
>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>
>
>
>January 7, 2003
>Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
>Committee on the Judiciary
>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>A BILL
>To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.
>
>
>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
>States of America in Congress assembled,
>
>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
>
>This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of
>2003'.
>
>SEC. 2. FEDERAL HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM TO APPLY IN ANY
>STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT
>MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
>
>(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
>adding at the end the following:
>
>`Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns
>
>`(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for the
>licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed, or controlled
>in the United States, which shall include a method for easily retrieving
>information sufficient to identify--
>
>`(A) each resident of a State to which this subsection applies who owns,
>possesses, or controls a handgun; and
>
>`(B) the handgun.
>
>`(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to own, possess, or control a
>handgun in a State to which this subsection applies unless the person--
>
>`(A) is licensed to do so by the system established pursuant to paragraph
>(1); and
>
>`(B) has registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law
>enforcement agency.
>
>`(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in a State if there is in effect a
>certification by the Attorney General that the State has in effect a
>system for the licensing and registration of handguns owned, possessed, or
>controlled in the State that--
>
>`(1) includes a method for easily retrieving information sufficient to
>identify--
>
>`(A) each resident of the State who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun
>in the State; and
>
>`(B) the handgun; and
>
>`(2) at a minimum, imposes criminal penalties on any person who owns,
>possesses, or controls a handgun in the State, and who--
>
>`(i) has not completed training in firearms safety;
>`(ii) is not licensed by the State to possess a handgun; or
>
>`(iii) has not registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law
>enforcement agency.
>
>`(c) A certification under subsection (b) with respect to a State shall
>have no force or effect on or after the date the Attorney General finds,
>after an opportunity for a hearing on the record, that the State does not
>have in effect the system described in subsection (b).
>
>`(d) The Attorney General shall prescribe such regulations as may be
>necessary to carry out this section.'.
>
>(b) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the
>end the following:
>
>`(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a)(2) shall be fined under
>this title, imprisoned not less than 15 years, or both. The court shall
>not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph or
>impose a probationary sentence under this paragraph.'.
>
>(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is amended
>by adding at the end the following:
>
>`931. Licensing and registration of handguns.'.
>
>(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall apply to
>conduct engaged in after the 2-year period that begins with the date of
>the enactment of this Act.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER To subscribe:
>libnw-subscribe@immosys.com To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com Admin matters:
>moderator@liberty-northwest.org URLs for Liberty Northwest: Archives and
>Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw Liberty Northwest Main
>Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:25:58 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote in response to Frank Reichert's repost on handgun
registration....

> Probably the same as one that was introduced in the last congress and the
> one before, and the one before that, and ....

Don't bet on it, this time.

> My guess? It goes to a committee and basically disappears. I wouldn't
> worry too much unless the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert. They
> generally have people "on the ground," so to speak, who know and talk to
> the people who run things. Generally, the "leadership" people know that
> something like this would practically get them lynched by the membership
if
> it appeared on the floor because the membership would get swamped with
> calls when that happened.

Maybe you missed it. But the legislation was sent directly to the "Judiciary
Committee". Maybe you are right, but odds are they will rule on it in some
way, before reviews are taken up by other committees. My guess is, as I
wrote last time, that some compromise might get into this sordid mess and
we'll still loose ground. The idea here is to make "handguns" a particular
issue of concern. If this bill is successful, guess what? Other weapons,
such as semi-automatic rifles might very well be next, and the list goes on.
This kind of reminds me of the "assault rifle" hysteria of recent history,
limiting clip sizes and capacities. As I said, this kind of legislation is
scary, since it often gets watered down in Committee. In the end, a
so-called "reluctant" President might sign this into law in a lower form
than it currently exists.

> So the best thing for them to do is say it needs
> to go through half a dozen committees starting with the committee with the
> most pro-gun chairman.

My best guess is they probably won't politically pull it off. First the GOP
doesn't hold that much of an edge on this issue, and many so-called moderate
GOP legislators who cry foul if that were to occur. This issue here has been
carefully selected by the anti-gun lobby, and the issue is "handguns". No,
I am not trying to suggest that this bill will make it through the hoops in
its present form, but there is a danger that it might somehow become
"respectable" enough to be considered, water down somewhat, and still make
"handguns" an issue for special treatment. Most of the guns I own are
handguns for example. I am not certain, but my gut instinct tells me most
gun owners likely have more handguns than rifles or shotguns. So this could
potentially become a real gun-regulator's best dream.

What we'll probably hear, is something along the lines, that cooler heads
are present and want to defend gun owner's rights in some fashion to keep
their handguns. Here is usually where the compromisers come in with the
concessions and deails on how that can happen. At stake however is the
Constitutional protection over the right to keep and bear arms, WITHOUT
regulation or restriction! Handguns are being singled out today -- tomorrow
we'll revisit the "assault rifles" again, and next time semi-automatic
rifles mostly used for hunting by the way.

> My guess is that after it hits the first committee,
> it never even gets scheduled for hearings.

Nice guess. Good luck!

> More likely is one to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban that's due to
expire
> this year (or is it next year?) That one actually has a chance and if it
> gets out of the House, I'd say odds are about 70% that it'll pass the
> Senate. Then, we've got a Pres. who's promised to sign it. Like it or
> not, I can't see him breaking that promise.

Linkage in this case to assault rifles doesn't seem to be practical. The
target here, no pun intended, is against all types of hand held firearms. I
know that the way this is presented is all or nothing. That's the way
politics works in the first round (again no pun intended). You give it your
best shot by calling for the mandatory registration of all handguns, and
then work it out in "committee" to make some ground. That's the way this all
works. That's the problem Lowell, separating the type of weapons
individuals are allowed to keep, without registering them. The end result,
believe me, is the registration of ALL firearms. This is the same type of
argument that won out on the nefarious "Assault Rife" thing only a few years
ago. Hell, a single shot 22 calibre rifle can become an assault rifle
depending upon its use.

To go back further, weapons aren't the motivators or reason for crime.
People are. A rock, a knife, or a hunk of broken glass, or a baseball bat
can become an assault weapon. But right now we have certain legislators who
are signing on as if hand guns (or most basic weapon for defence) is the
motivator and perpetrator for such crimes.

It will indeed be interesting to watch how this Congress chooses to handle
this peice of proposed legislation, and where it goes, and what the
Administration's public take on it really might turn out to be.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and
Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:30:02 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

The "assault weapons ban" which includes the normal-size magazine ban
(above 10 rounds) is due to sunset either late this year or early next
year. If nothing is done, that law will soon be history. If that law is
going to continue, it must be passed as a new law. The fact that it has
been law for almost 10 years will give some "oomph" to the push to pass the
new law. Of course, if it gets to the floor, it will be tough to keep the
congresscritters from voting on things like making it permanent and adding
stuff to get rid of the "loopholes" of various kinds (that is, "loopholes"
as defined by the hoplophobes). President Bush promised during the
campaign that he would sign legislation renewing this law. Since we don't
even know if his veto pen works, it's almost a sure bet that if legislation
renewing an AW ban reaches his desk, he'll sign it. I don't know if such a
bill has even been filed yet. But regardless, you can bet that if it
isn't passed, it will be a victory for the gun rights crowd and a defeat
for the Brady Campaign (or whatever they're calling themselves today). So
this will be the tough fight.

Now, regarding a handgun registration law (like HR 124). There may be a
RINO or two that will sign on to this. But there are a lot of Democrats
who ran as pro-gunners. Some of them may even tell their leadership that
if this thing gets identified with the Democratic party, they are going to
have to bolt the party because their constituents will lynch them
(figuratively speaking, of course) if they don't. I've never heard of "Mr.
Holt". My guess is that he's from MD, NJ or some other real
liberal/socialist place and so he's introduced this thing so he can go back
to his constituents and say "See? I drafted this neato handgun
registration law! But the big bad meany Republicans refused to let it see
the light of day!"

Like I said, when the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert saying that there's
a hearing scheduled on it or some other action, then I'll start to
worry. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.

Lowell
At 20:25 01/25/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>Lowell Savage wrote in response to Frank Reichert's repost on handgun
>registration....
>
> > Probably the same as one that was introduced in the last congress and
the
> > one before, and the one before that, and ....
>
>Don't bet on it, this time.
>
> > My guess? It goes to a committee and basically disappears. I wouldn't
> > worry too much unless the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert. They
> > generally have people "on the ground," so to speak, who know and talk to
> > the people who run things. Generally, the "leadership" people know that
> > something like this would practically get them lynched by the membership
>if
> > it appeared on the floor because the membership would get swamped with
> > calls when that happened.
>
>Maybe you missed it. But the legislation was sent directly to the
"Judiciary
>Committee". Maybe you are right, but odds are they will rule on it in some
>way, before reviews are taken up by other committees. My guess is, as I
>wrote last time, that some compromise might get into this sordid mess and
>we'll still loose ground. The idea here is to make "handguns" a particular
>issue of concern. If this bill is successful, guess what? Other weapons,
>such as semi-automatic rifles might very well be next, and the list goes
on.
>This kind of reminds me of the "assault rifle" hysteria of recent history,
>limiting clip sizes and capacities. As I said, this kind of legislation is
>scary, since it often gets watered down in Committee. In the end, a
>so-called "reluctant" President might sign this into law in a lower form
>than it currently exists.
>
> > So the best thing for them to do is say it needs
> > to go through half a dozen committees starting with the committee with
the
> > most pro-gun chairman.
>
>My best guess is they probably won't politically pull it off. First the GOP
>doesn't hold that much of an edge on this issue, and many so-called
moderate
>GOP legislators who cry foul if that were to occur. This issue here has
been
>carefully selected by the anti-gun lobby, and the issue is "handguns". No,
>I am not trying to suggest that this bill will make it through the hoops in
>its present form, but there is a danger that it might somehow become
>"respectable" enough to be considered, water down somewhat, and still make
>"handguns" an issue for special treatment. Most of the guns I own are
>handguns for example. I am not certain, but my gut instinct tells me most
>gun owners likely have more handguns than rifles or shotguns. So this
could
>potentially become a real gun-regulator's best dream.
>
>What we'll probably hear, is something along the lines, that cooler heads
>are present and want to defend gun owner's rights in some fashion to keep
>their handguns. Here is usually where the compromisers come in with the
>concessions and deails on how that can happen. At stake however is the
>Constitutional protection over the right to keep and bear arms, WITHOUT
>regulation or restriction! Handguns are being singled out today -- tomorrow
>we'll revisit the "assault rifles" again, and next time semi-automatic
>rifles mostly used for hunting by the way.
>
> > My guess is that after it hits the first committee,
> > it never even gets scheduled for hearings.
>
>Nice guess. Good luck!
>
> > More likely is one to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban that's due to
>expire
> > this year (or is it next year?) That one actually has a chance and if
it
> > gets out of the House, I'd say odds are about 70% that it'll pass the
> > Senate. Then, we've got a Pres. who's promised to sign it. Like it or
> > not, I can't see him breaking that promise.
>
>Linkage in this case to assault rifles doesn't seem to be practical. The
>target here, no pun intended, is against all types of hand held firearms. I
>know that the way this is presented is all or nothing. That's the way
>politics works in the first round (again no pun intended). You give it your
>best shot by calling for the mandatory registration of all handguns, and
>then work it out in "committee" to make some ground. That's the way this
all
>works. That's the problem Lowell, separating the type of weapons
>individuals are allowed to keep, without registering them. The end result,
>believe me, is the registration of ALL firearms. This is the same type of
>argument that won out on the nefarious "Assault Rife" thing only a few
years
>ago. Hell, a single shot 22 calibre rifle can become an assault rifle
>depending upon its use.
>
>To go back further, weapons aren't the motivators or reason for crime.
>People are. A rock, a knife, or a hunk of broken glass, or a baseball bat
>can become an assault weapon. But right now we have certain legislators who
>are signing on as if hand guns (or most basic weapon for defence) is the
>motivator and perpetrator for such crimes.
>
>It will indeed be interesting to watch how this Congress chooses to handle
>this peice of proposed legislation, and where it goes, and what the
>Administration's public take on it really might turn out to be.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing andRegistration Act
of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:24:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> The "assault weapons ban" which includes the normal-size magazine ban
> (above 10 rounds) is due to sunset either late this year or early next
> year.

Great! Then some of us will no longer be criminals, facing fail terms
and incarceration. That's the good news.

> If nothing is done, that law will soon be history. If that law is
> going to continue, it must be passed as a new law. The fact that it has
> been law for almost 10 years will give some "oomph" to the push to pass
the
> new law. Of course, if it gets to the floor, it will be tough to keep the
> congresscritters from voting on things like making it permanent and adding
> stuff to get rid of the "loopholes" of various kinds (that is, "loopholes"
> as defined by the hoplophobes). President Bush promised during the
> campaign that he would sign legislation renewing this law. Since we don't
> even know if his veto pen works, it's almost a sure bet that if
legislation
> renewing an AW ban reaches his desk, he'll sign it.

So, we're still all criminals, awaiting incarceration (if caught and
prosecuted)? I fail to see your point as to how the current assault on
handguns is really a "plus factor" in preserving our Second Amendment
rights.

> Now, regarding a handgun registration law (like HR 124). There may be a
> RINO or two that will sign on to this. But there are a lot of Democrats
> who ran as pro-gunners.

I disagree, that overall, there are a lot. Unless they represent
people in such states as Idaho, Montana, and several others. The one
that comes to mind was the slimy Larry LaRocco, the Democrat who was
appointed by Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus and later confirmed for
re-election by Idaho voters. That was a long time ago. But he too was
eventually defeated, and replaced by congresswoman Helen Chenoweth.
There are still a great number of these Cretans out there.

> Some of them may even tell their leadership that
> if this thing gets identified with the Democratic party, they are going to
> have to bolt the party because their constituents will lynch them
> (figuratively speaking, of course) if they don't.

Well, few and far in number, unfortunately. Almost non-existent today.
At least in Idaho, that number may have been captured by the Democrats
by signing on as Republicans. Same thing that occurred during the
so-called Reagan revolution!

[Some snips here...]
> I've never heard of "Mr.
> Holt"... But the big bad meany Republicans refused to let it see
> the light of day!"

That'll be the day! This Administration is trying very hard to be the
"politics as usual crowd", and vying with the Democrats for that
distinction.

> Like I said, when the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert saying that
there's
> a hearing scheduled on it or some other action, then I'll start to
> worry. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.

They likely will, in due course. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to
watch where this all goes.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing
andRegistration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:36:44 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!

Frank. You've totally missed my point. My point is that this HR 124
Handgun Licensing and Registration Act is probably little more than the
political equivalent of a feint. It's probably going to get bottled up in
the Judiciary Committee (where it is now). If anything serious starts to
come of it, I expect that we'll suddenly get alerts from the folks at the
NRA and the GOA. If that happens, then, absolutely flood your
Congresscritter with mail, email, and phone calls. Until then, it probably
isn't really worth spending energy on. The sucker punch to watch out for
is the renewal of the AW ban (which we haven't seen, yet, as far as I
know). But it's coming. And since it will "simply be an extension of what
is currently the law", it will be claimed to "oh, so reasonable, and
moderate and bi-partisan and fair and ...."

What I'm afraid of is that everyone gets all excited about this HR 124
(which is going nowhere) and then when the AW ban renewal comes along,
everyone's too burned out to do anything about it. There are democrats
from places like Colorado, Tennessee, Texas, and so on who ran campaigns as
"pro-gunners". Some of them even got "A"s and "B"s from the NRA and even
from the GOA. The only way they might want this thing on the floor of the
House is so they can vote against it to give them cover to vote for the AW
ban renewal. But if HR 124 passes and is strongly identified with the
Democrats, they will be toast in their districts--even if they voted
against it.

The rest of my discussion below about the chances of the AW ban passing
could be summarized as follows: if we're going stop it, we'll have to stop
it in the House. I don't like saying that. But it's the truth.

Lowell
At 21:24 01/26/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > The "assault weapons ban" which includes the normal-size magazine ban
> > (above 10 rounds) is due to sunset either late this year or early next
> > year.
>
>Great! Then some of us will no longer be criminals, facing fail terms
>and incarceration. That's the good news.
>
> > If nothing is done, that law will soon be history. If that law is
> > going to continue, it must be passed as a new law. The fact that it has
> > been law for almost 10 years will give some "oomph" to the push to pass
the
> > new law. Of course, if it gets to the floor, it will be tough to keep
the
> > congresscritters from voting on things like making it permanent and
adding
> > stuff to get rid of the "loopholes" of various kinds (that is,
"loopholes"
> > as defined by the hoplophobes). President Bush promised during the
> > campaign that he would sign legislation renewing this law. Since we
don't
> > even know if his veto pen works, it's almost a sure bet that if
legislation
> > renewing an AW ban reaches his desk, he'll sign it.
>
>So, we're still all criminals, awaiting incarceration (if caught and
>prosecuted)? I fail to see your point as to how the current assault on
>handguns is really a "plus factor" in preserving our Second Amendment
>rights.
>
> > Now, regarding a handgun registration law (like HR 124). There may be a
> > RINO or two that will sign on to this. But there are a lot of Democrats
> > who ran as pro-gunners.
>
>I disagree, that overall, there are a lot. Unless they represent
>people in such states as Idaho, Montana, and several others. The one
>that comes to mind was the slimy Larry LaRocco, the Democrat who was
>appointed by Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus and later confirmed for
>re-election by Idaho voters. That was a long time ago. But he too was
>eventually defeated, and replaced by congresswoman Helen Chenoweth.
>There are still a great number of these Cretans out there.
>
> > Some of them may even tell their leadership that
> > if this thing gets identified with the Democratic party, they are going
to
> > have to bolt the party because their constituents will lynch them
> > (figuratively speaking, of course) if they don't.
>
>Well, few and far in number, unfortunately. Almost non-existent today.
>At least in Idaho, that number may have been captured by the Democrats
>by signing on as Republicans. Same thing that occurred during the
>so-called Reagan revolution!
>
>[Some snips here...]
> > I've never heard of "Mr.
> > Holt"... But the big bad meany Republicans refused to let it see
> > the light of day!"
>
>That'll be the day! This Administration is trying very hard to be the
>"politics as usual crowd", and vying with the Democrats for that
>distinction.
>
> > Like I said, when the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert saying that
there's
> > a hearing scheduled on it or some other action, then I'll start to
> > worry. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.
>
>They likely will, in due course. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to
>watch where this all goes.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:16:34 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

[Image]

Greetings again Ron!

Excellent resolution, Ron. I encourage everyone to pass this one on to
friends, family, acquaintances and anyone else you may know. It is probably
best to leave it in html format for greatest impact. Thanks Ron!

Kindest regards,
Frank

Ronald G Wittig forwarded the following "Impeachment of George Bush Now"
resolution, forwarded previously by Tom Simmons and Rod Remeln...

> Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
> by FRANCIS BOYLE
>
> http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes and
> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)
>
> January 17, 2003
> 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, 1st Session
>
> Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high
> crimes and misdemeanors.
> _______________________________________________
>
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
> January __, 2003
>
> Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
> Committee on Judiciary.
> ________________________________________________
>
> A RESOLUTION
>
> Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high
> crimes and misdemeanors.
>
> Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States is
> impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following
> articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
>
> Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the
> United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of
> the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the
> United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment
> against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. ARTICLE I
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a
> military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of
> America by means of "A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the
> Constitution since September 11, 2001.
>
> This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to suspend
> the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A.
> Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of
> foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens
> of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration;
> interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases
> to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
> unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights
> of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly,
> and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the
> federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian
> Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the
> Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and
> Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
> Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
> reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna
> Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total
> Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern
> Military Command for the United States of America itself.
>
> In all of this, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE II
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of
> the Constitution.
>
> U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and
> Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system
> that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of
> citizens.
>
> Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal
> protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a
> war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this
> country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers.
>
> In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE III
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal
> law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and
> threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security
> Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq.
>
> In all of this, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE IV
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to
> engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by
> employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of
> hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children.
>
> This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use
> of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment,
> or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land
> warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague
> Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I
> thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide
> Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field
> Manual 27-10 (1956).
>
> In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE V
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of
> war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations
> Charter and international law.
>
> From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a
> course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful
> resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached
> Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives
> were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress
> meaningless.
>
> The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in
> contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S.
> Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views
> of the American people.
>
> In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has
> acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
> constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and
> justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE VI
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to
> commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into
> aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United
> Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the
> Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other
> international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United
> States.
>
> In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> (In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez - R.I.P. - and H. Res. 34,
> 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1991.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.rise4news.net/Impeachment_Resolution.html
>

FAX this page to Impeachment Resolution Against President George Before he enter on
your W. Bush the Execution of his
Representative Office, he shall
and demand that take the following
he or she Oath or
introduce the by Affirmation:--"I do
impeachment solemnly swear (or
resolution in affirm) that I will
the House faithfully execute
immediately! Francis A. Boyle the Office of
President of the
Why Fax? An Professor of Law United States, and
activist will to the best of
recently called January 17, 2003 my Ability,
three preserve, protect
Congressional and defend the
Offices and all Constitution of the
three said United States."
faxing is best! --U.S. Const. Art.
(Click on the 108nd Congress H.Res.XX II, Sec. 1,
"your Cl. 8
Representative" 1st Session
link above to This Constitution,
find your Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the and the Laws of the
Congressperson's United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. United States which
web site. They shall be made in
all have contact _______________________________________________ Pursuance thereof;
links that will and all Treaties
show a fax IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES made, or which shall
number). be made, under the
January __, 2003 Authority of the
Rights, like United States, shall
muscles, must be Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; be the supreme Law
exercised. which was referred to the Committee on of the Land; and the
Judiciary. Judges in every
U.S. State shall be bound
Constitution ________________________________________________ thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution
A RESOLUTION or Laws of any State
to the Contrary
Congress shall Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the notwithstanding.
make no law United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. --U.S. Const. Art.
respecting an VI, Cl. 2
establishment of Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the The President, Vice
religion, or United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. President and all
prohibiting the civil Officers of
free exercise Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States,
thereof; or the United States is impeached for high crimes shall be removed
abridging the and misdemeanors, and that the following from Office on
freedom of articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Impeachment for, and
speech, or of Senate: Conviction of,
the press; or Treason, Bribery, or
the right of the Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House other high Crimes
people peaceably of Representatives of the United States of and Misdemeanors.
to assemble, and America in the name of itself and of all of the --U.S. Const. Art .
to petition the people of the United States of America, against II, Sec. 4
Government for a George Walker Bush, President of the United
redress of States of America, in maintenance and support of Convention Against
grievances. its impeachment against him for high crimes and Torture
--The First misdemeanors.
Amendment 3rd Geneva
ARTICLE I Convention(Relative
The right of to the treatment of
the people to be In the conduct of the office of President of the prisoners of war).
secure in their United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
persons, houses, of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute 4th Geneva
papers, and the office of President of the United States Convention
effects, against and, to the best of his ability, preserve, (Relative to the
unreasonable protect, and defend the Constitution of the protection of
searches and United States, and in violation of his civilian persons in
seizures, shall constitutional duty to take care that the laws time of war.)
not be violated, be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose Kellogg-Briand Pact
and no Warrants a police state and a military dictatorship upon 1928
shall issue, but the people and Republic of the United States of (Treaty between the
upon probable America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and United States and
cause, supported Usurpations" against the Constitution since other Powers
by Oath or September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct providing for the
affirmation, and includes but is not limited to trying to suspend renunciation of war
particularly the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; as an instrument of
describing the ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act national policy.)
place to be through Congress; the mass-round-up and
searched, and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; International
the persons or depriving at least two United States citizens of Convention on the
things to be their constitutional rights by means of military Elimination of All
seized. incarceration; interference with the Forms of Racial
--The Fourth constitutional right of defendants in criminal Discrimination
Amendment cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the International
Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable Covenant on Civil
In all criminal searches and seizures; violating the First and Political Rights
prosecutions, Amendments rights of the free exercise of
the accused religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, The Nuremberg
shall enjoy the and to petition the government for redress of Principles
right to a grievances; packing the federal judiciary with
speedy and hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Posse Comitatus Act
public trial, by Federalist Society and undermining the judicial of 1878
an impartial independence of the Constitution's Article III
jury of the federal court system; violating the Third and Tit. 18 Pt. 1 Ch.
State and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War 118
district wherein Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant Sec. 2441
the crime shall on Civil and Political Rights and the (War Crimes)
have been International Convention on the Elimination of UN Charter
committed, which All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Universal
district shall reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Declaration
have been Program; violating the Vienna Convention on of Human Rights
previously Consular Relations, the Convention against U.S. Army Field
ascertained by Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Manual 27-10
law, and to be Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total (The law of land
informed of the Information Awareness Program; and establishing warfare)
nature and cause a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the Vienna Convention
of the United States of America itself. In all of this on Consular
accusation; to George Walker Bush has acted in a manner Relations
be confronted contrary to his trust as President and
with the subversive of constitutional government, to the
witnesses great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
against him; to and to the manifest injury of the people of the
have compulsory United States.
process for
obtaining Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
witnesses in his warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
favor, and to office.
have the
Assistance of ARTICLE II
Counsel for his
defence. In the conduct of the office of President of the
--The Sixth United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
Amendment of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S.
soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly
poor White, Black, and Latino and their military
service is based on the coercion of a system
that has denied viable economic opportunities to
these classes of citizens. Under the
Constitution, all classes of citizens are
guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and
calling on the poor and minorities to fight a
war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the
wealthy power elite of this country is a denial
of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this
George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S.
Constitution, federal law, and the United
Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and
threatening others, including the members of the
United Nations Security Council, to support
belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this
George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned,
and conspired to engage in a massive war and
catastrophic aggression against Iraq by
employing methods of mass destruction that will
result in the killing of hundreds of thousands
of civilians, many of whom will be children.
This planning includes the threatened use of
nuclear weapons, and the use of such
indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by
aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians,
violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare,
the rules of customary international law set
forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the
Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I
thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and
Principles, the Genocide Convention, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S.
Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this
George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has committed the United
States to acts of war without congressional
consent and contrary to the United Nations
Charter and international law. From September,
2001 through January, 2003, the President
embarked on a course of action that
systematically eliminated every option for
peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis.
Once the President approached Congress for
consent to war, tens of thousands of American
soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any
substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The
President has not received a Declaration of War
by Congress, and in contravention of the written
word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S.
Constitution has declared that he will go to war
regardless of the views of the American people.
In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of
War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared,
and conspired to commit crimes against the peace
by leading the United States into aggressive war
against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter,
Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand
Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956),
numerous other international treaties and
agreements, and the Constitution of the United
States. In all of this George Walker Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause
of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez -
R.I.P. - and H. Res. 34, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess.,
Jan. 16, 1991.)
>
> Views expressed in this forum not necessarily endorsed by The Watchmen On
> the Wall, LLC. The Watchmen On the Wall, LLC, bears no liability for the
> content of posted messages. Any unauthorized use or misuse of the name
> Watchmen On the Wall or W.O.W. will result in prosecution.
>
> By subscribing to this email list, you agree to indemnify the owners of
> the list. You agree to never use information received from this list to
> the detriment of anyone associated with this
> list. If you do not agree with this policy, Unsubscribe NOW! by sending a
> blank message to
>
> mailto:watchmen_on_the_wall-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> To Post message: watchmen_on_the_wall@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: watchmen_on_the_wall-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: watchmen_on_the_wall-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: watchmen_on_the_wall-owner@yahoogroups.com
> URL: http://groups..yahoo.com/group/watchmen_on_the_wall
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[HGTV Dream Home Giveaway]

>
> Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
> Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> Web: www.liberty-northwest.org
> Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: www.lpidaho.org
>
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:56:22 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank and Ron!

Sorry guys, this thing is such a joke. I'm only going to respond to a few
parts of it because it's not worth wasting my time.

Frank, quoting Ron wrote, in part:
>><http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/>http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/

This probably says all that really needs to be said. "It's a conspiracy
out there. The

One-world-bilderburger-zionist-masonic-knights-templar-federal-reserve-CIA-black-helicopter
conspiracy has taken another step to consolidate its power!"

Sheesh!

>> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes and
>> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
>> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)

Oh, yes. "Demand" action.

>>This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to
>>suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;

Hmm. Habeas Corpus means judicial review of whether continued detention is
permissible. So far as I know, that's been the case for everyone detained
in the US. Even foreigners who overstayed their visas.

>> ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress;

This one's a real knee-slapper. Since the congresscritters almost
unanimously voted in favor of something that he signed, that's supposed to
be one of the reasons that those same congresscritters should use to
impeach him? If pigs had wings, they'd still not be able to fly--but
they'd stand a better chance than this little bit of idiocy. And never
mind that the so-called "PATRIOT Act" was bad and unconstitutional law. No
congress has any business impeaching a president for signing such a law if
it was passed by congress (even a previous congress). They ought to
impeach the congresscritters first--which, of course, will happen when pigs
fly at supersonic speeds.

>> the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts;
>> depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional
>> rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the
>> constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers;
>> violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
>> unreasonable searches and seizures;

All of which, even if true, are only pale shadows of what has gone before
and have been reviewed and blessed by the courts. So...is congress
supposed to impeach the judges too? Yeah, probably. See below.

>> violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion,
>> freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government
>> for redress of grievances;

Hunh?! What was it with all that anti-war protesting last weekend? Is
this a complaint about shutting down a Moslem "charity" or two that had
sent money to terrorists? I'll bet these people weren't complaining about
"free exercise of religion" etc. when outfits like the Aryan Nations
"church" got stomped on because of their support for violence against Jews
and Blacks.

>> packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the
>> totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial
>> independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system;

This one's really rich! The Federalist Society is "totalitarian"??? Yeah
and Stalin was a misunderstood liberal democrat in the Thomas Jefferson
mold. Sure. About the only thing area where the Federalist Society might
tend to disagree with libertarians is in the area of whether "community
standards" should apply to laws on morality. Otherwise, on private
property rights, "states rights", the bill of rights, the 14th and 15th
amendment rights, they are practically indistinguishable from
libertarians. The main thing that seems to distinguish the Federalist
Society is it's call to honor the original intent of the constitution and
to reduce this idea of "a living constitution" which basically means that
the constitution means whatever some judge wants it to mean. To call them
"totalitarian" tells me that whoever wrote this piece of drek thinks that
it is "totalitarian" to *not* redistribute wealth, to allow states to use
the political process to decide when life begins and how it should be
protected, to want to reduce the commerce clause to mean anything less than
"the feds can do whatever they want", to want the 2nd amendment to mean an
individual right, to think that capital punishment is not "cruel and
unusual", etc. All of that is "totalitarian" to the authors of this
"impeachment."

The people who wrote this might not be commie-pinko-liberal-socialists, but
they're so darn close it's almost not worth trying to distinguish. I'm
betting that if they call themselves anything, they call themselves
"progressive", but who really cares? They are totally out-to-lunch.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:36:27 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote...

> Greetings Frank and Ron!
> Sorry guys, this thing is such a joke. I'm only going to respond to a few
> parts of it because it's not worth wasting my time.

Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What else
is new?

> Frank, quoting Ron wrote, in part:
> >><http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/>http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
> This probably says all that really needs to be said. "It's a conspiracy
> out there. The
>
One-world-bilderburger-zionist-masonic-knights-templar-federal-reserve-CIA-black-helicopter
> conspiracy has taken another step to consolidate its power!"
> > Sheesh!

I don't recall either Ron or I writing this. But, if you say so.

> >> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes and
> >> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
> >> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)
> Oh, yes. "Demand" action.

So, what's your problem with that? I've been advocating and demanding
the removal of this regime for many, many months! I only wish opinion
polls agreed more with me, and showed the majority of real Americans
demanding the same thing. Thankfully, the polls ARE beginning to show
a shift. To early to tell where this will go.

> >>This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to
> >>suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;

> Hmm. Habeas Corpus means judicial review of whether continued detention
is
> permissible. So far as I know, that's been the case for everyone detained
> in the US. Even foreigners who overstayed their visas.

Right! Like at Camp X-Ray, and American citizens being detained
indefinitely without charges being filed. I don't know what planet
you live on sometimes Lowell.

> >> ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress;
>
> This one's a real knee-slapper. Since the congresscritters almost
> unanimously voted in favor of something that he signed, that's supposed to
> be one of the reasons that those same congresscritters should use to
> impeach him? If pigs had wings, they'd still not be able to fly--but
> they'd stand a better chance than this little bit of idiocy. And never
> mind that the so-called "PATRIOT Act" was bad and unconstitutional law.
No
> congress has any business impeaching a president for signing such a law if
> it was passed by congress (even a previous congress). They ought to
> impeach the congresscritters first--which, of course, will happen when
pigs
> fly at supersonic speeds.

This hysteria will only change, when people change. And the polls are
beginning to show a marked change in how the people support this
unilateral shoot from the hip war in the negative. With further
erosion in the polls, and with about 70% of Americans believing that
this unilateral attack should NOT occur, the "Congresscriters" will
have second thoughts about supporting this outrageous crap any
further. Support for the Vietnam War shifted mainly under the same
conditions. Like it or not Lowell, it's happening again. "The Times
they are a changin'"

> >> the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts;
> >> depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional
> >> rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the
> >> constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers;
> >> violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
> >> unreasonable searches and seizures;

> All of which, even if true, are only pale shadows of what has gone before
> and have been reviewed and blessed by the courts. So...is congress
> supposed to impeach the judges too? Yeah, probably. See below.

Absolutely excellent if they do, but I'd settle for just renouncing
unilateral use of US military force right now, and withdrawing funding
for it.

> >> violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of
religion,
> >> freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government
> >> for redress of grievances;

> Hunh?! What was it with all that anti-war protesting last weekend? Is
> this a complaint about shutting down a Moslem "charity" or two that had
> sent money to terrorists? I'll bet these people weren't complaining about
> "free exercise of religion" etc. when outfits like the Aryan Nations
> "church" got stomped on because of their support for violence against Jews
> and Blacks.

Boy Lowell. You're a lot further out there than I ever thought you
were. Someone really must be rubbing on a raw nerve. Lighten up a bit.

You ignore the facts that this Regime has been eroding individual
liberty and human rights since the day it took office, and has
accelerated that process since 9/11, which I suppose was a giant
pretext to do so when such support would most likely be forthcoming,
and without question. If you really feel comfortable with Tom Ridge
being elevated to Cabinet level status, and Asscroft as Attorney
General, and Heir Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence, then sir, you
deserve this fascist state! You condone it, you support it, you argue
for it -- it's yours! Entirely yours! It is not mine, and I do not,
and will not support a totalitarian police state.

[The rest of hysteria snipped for brevity...]

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. I don't
honestly understand your passion and zeal for promoting an attack upon
another state when no inherent threat exists (outside of our own
making and design) against the United States. You appear to be
totally closed toward any criticism at all over the actions of the
present regime. You seem to believe that the ends justify the means.
It's okay to zap Constitutional rights. You believe it is okay for
individuals to be deprived of their freedom, insofar as this is
necessary to defeat another force that would never likely be a threat
at all if we had a neutral and non-aggressive foreign policy.

In fact, you seem to believe that the same tactics employed by
dictatorial and fascist regimes are perfectly okay, if the ends
justify the means of defeating a remote tyrant anywhere defined by the
US government, even though that is none of our business.

It is no accident at all, that world opinion has so quickly shifted
away from sympathy for us after the acts of 9/11, and are now becoming
most vocal and critical of our real intentions and aggression. We're
losing it fast. It is OUR fault that we are losing it, because we have
lost focus. We've been losing it in the same way for the last five
decades of our imperialistic and militaristic "gun boat" foreign
policy.

Even Americans today are starting to become more vocal and critical.
That, sir, may become our ultimate salvation in any of this, before we
lose our final credibility in the court of world opinion.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:12:23 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What
> else is new?

Yes, and there are plenty of other facts to use to
impeach Bush.

For example, he fails to take seriously the charge that
the moon landings were faked.

See
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=124&contentid=684

I do not think we have to look any further.

Regards
Tim

Patterns of the Soul
Gideon: There's a benefit in knowing people in
high places

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:54:57 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

ROFLMAO! Thanks Tim!

Lowell
Tim Bedding wrote, in part:
>Frank
>
> > Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What
> > else is new?
>
>Yes, and there are plenty of other facts to use to
>impeach Bush.
>
>For example, he fails to take seriously the charge that
>the moon landings were faked.
>
>See
>http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=124&contentid=684
>
>I do not think we have to look any further.
>
>Regards
>Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:30:32 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank
>Greetings Lowell!
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote...
> > Greetings Frank and Ron!
> > Sorry guys, this thing is such a joke. I'm only going to respond to a
few
> > parts of it because it's not worth wasting my time.
>
>Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What else
>is new?

Amazing that you would say this since you are guilty of this yourself in
the very post you put this in. See below.

>...
>I don't recall either Ron or I writing this. But, if you say so.

Well the return address was your name and you were quoting something that
Ron had forwarded--either to you or to the list (and I think I missed
seeing it on the list). You had a short approving comment at the beginning
IIRC.

> > >> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes
and
> > >> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
> > >> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)
> > Oh, yes. "Demand" action.
>
>So, what's your problem with that? I've been advocating and demanding
>the removal of this regime for many, many months! I only wish opinion
>polls agreed more with me, and showed the majority of real Americans
>demanding the same thing. Thankfully, the polls ARE beginning to show
>a shift. To early to tell where this will go.

Dream on about the polls--especially after the SOTU speech. And I was
making fun of the "demand action" part because later they say that the one
of the reasons for the impeachment is that Bush signed a bill that Congress
passed.

> > >>This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to
> > >>suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;
>
> > Hmm. Habeas Corpus means judicial review of whether continued detention
is
> > permissible. So far as I know, that's been the case for everyone
detained
> > in the US. Even foreigners who overstayed their visas.
>
>Right! Like at Camp X-Ray, and American citizens being detained
>indefinitely without charges being filed. I don't know what planet
>you live on sometimes Lowell.

Habeas Corpus means "you have the body". It basically provides for showing
why the continued detention is lawful. See
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm. The two American citizens' detention
HAS been reviewed by the courts. And Camp X-Ray is actually a better
situation than those guys deserve. We are treating them as PWs rather than
as non-lawful combatants. But apparently, even that isn't good enough for
you.

> > >> ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress;
> >
> > This one's a real knee-slapper. Since the congresscritters almost
> > unanimously voted in favor of something that he signed, that's supposed
to
> > be one of the reasons that those same congresscritters should use to
> > impeach him? If pigs had wings, they'd still not be able to fly--but
> > they'd stand a better chance than this little bit of idiocy. And never
> > mind that the so-called "PATRIOT Act" was bad and unconstitutional law.
No
> > congress has any business impeaching a president for signing such a law
if
> > it was passed by congress (even a previous congress). They ought to
> > impeach the congresscritters first--which, of course, will happen when
pigs
> > fly at supersonic speeds.
>
>This hysteria will only change, when people change. And the polls are
>beginning to show a marked change in how the people support this
>unilateral shoot from the hip war in the negative. With further
>erosion in the polls, and with about 70% of Americans believing that
>this unilateral attack should NOT occur, the "Congresscriters" will
>have second thoughts about supporting this outrageous crap any
>further. Support for the Vietnam War shifted mainly under the same
>conditions. Like it or not Lowell, it's happening again. "The Times
>they are a changin'"

I'm not sure how this relates to what I said above. And it's already
obsolete as far as what happened in the polls. Besides, rather than
howling for impeachment, a far better approach to getting rid of the
so-called "Patriot Act" would be to contact your congresscritter and put
some heat on it to repeal the worst parts.

> > >> the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts;
> > >> depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional
> > >> rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the
> > >> constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers;
> > >> violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
> > >> unreasonable searches and seizures;
>
> > All of which, even if true, are only pale shadows of what has gone
before
> > and have been reviewed and blessed by the courts. So...is congress
> > supposed to impeach the judges too? Yeah, probably. See below.
>
>Absolutely excellent if they do, but I'd settle for just renouncing
>unilateral use of US military force right now, and withdrawing funding
>for it.

I see.

> > >> violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of
religion,
> > >> freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government
> > >> for redress of grievances;
>
> > Hunh?! What was it with all that anti-war protesting last weekend? Is
> > this a complaint about shutting down a Moslem "charity" or two that had
> > sent money to terrorists? I'll bet these people weren't complaining
about
> > "free exercise of religion" etc. when outfits like the Aryan Nations
> > "church" got stomped on because of their support for violence against
Jews
> > and Blacks.
>
>Boy Lowell. You're a lot further out there than I ever thought you
>were. Someone really must be rubbing on a raw nerve. Lighten up a bit.
>
>You ignore the facts that this Regime has been eroding individual
>liberty and human rights since the day it took office, and has
>accelerated that process since 9/11, which I suppose was a giant
>pretext to do so when such support would most likely be forthcoming,
>and without question. If you really feel comfortable with Tom Ridge
>being elevated to Cabinet level status, and Asscroft as Attorney
>General, and Heir Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence, then sir, you
>deserve this fascist state! You condone it, you support it, you argue
>for it -- it's yours! Entirely yours! It is not mine, and I do not,
>and will not support a totalitarian police state.

Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we had anti-war protests all
over the country last weekend (presumably these are protests against what
the government officials want to do) and so far as I can tell, the only
arrests (if any) were for things like vandalism or violence or some other
non-political criminal behavior. Meanwhile, Frank Reichert (and the
"Impeach Bush" crowd) think that this government is violating of "freedom
of speech" and "peaceable assembly" and "to petition the government for
redress of grievances". So Frank, what exactly were these "protestors"
doing if they weren't exercising freedom of speech, assembly and
petition!!! I brought up some facts and you ignore those facts in your
response while accusing me of ignoring facts! Good grief, Frank!

>[The rest of hysteria snipped for brevity...]
>
>I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. I don't
>honestly understand your passion and zeal for promoting an attack upon
>another state when no inherent threat exists (outside of our own
>making and design) against the United States. You appear to be
>totally closed toward any criticism at all over the actions of the
>present regime. You seem to believe that the ends justify the means.
>It's okay to zap Constitutional rights. You believe it is okay for
>individuals to be deprived of their freedom, insofar as this is
>necessary to defeat another force that would never likely be a threat
>at all if we had a neutral and non-aggressive foreign policy.

I thought I was talking about a silly "Impeach Bush" petition. But now you
seem to think it had to do with "promoting and attack..." and that just
because I think this thing is silly, it means that I'm "totally closed to
any criticism...of the present regime." But I suppose that explains why
your first sentence says you don't understand my point.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:19:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote in part:
> > Thankfully, the polls ARE beginning to show
> >a shift. To early to tell where this will go.

You replied:
> Dream on about the polls--especially after the SOTU speech. And I was
> making fun of the "demand action" part because later they say that the one
> of the reasons for the impeachment is that Bush signed a bill that
Congress
> passed.

According to CBS News, the momentum against a non-sanctioned by the UN
attack on Iraq is growing, even following the SOTU speech. In fact,
CBS ran a clip showing that many Americans still remain unconvinced.
Street protests also seem to be growing in size and number.

And we are talking only in the US. But Nelson Mandella was also
prominently on CBS evening news last night claiming that the Bush
leadership was short sighted, and that US aggression has become a
problem for critical concern in the world community. Nelson Mandella,
like him or not, is still considered to be one of the world's
prominent elder statesmen. The clip will obviously enjoy global
coverage on a plethora of international news media.

You seem to naively believe Bush can make one speak, and gloss over
all of the blunders of decades of imperialistic and aggressive foreign
policy, or conveniently sweep it under the rug and out of sight, and
no one will be paying attention.

I notice too the Shrub Regime's<tm> latest "proof" of Iraqi complicity
with al-Queada was the American diplomat that was recently gunned down
in Jordan, who spirited off to Baghdad after the assassination. Our
regime claims that this is irrefutable and indisputable proof that
"al-Queada exists in Baghdad". Well, excuse me. Al-Queada exists in
approximately 60 or more countries around the globe, including likely
cells in every major US city! Big deal. So far at least I haven't
seen the so-called smoking gun linking Saddam Hussein with al-Queada.
Obviously most of the rest of the planet hasn't either.

> Habeas Corpus means "you have the body". It basically provides for
showing
> why the continued detention is lawful. See
> http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm. The two American citizens' detention
> HAS been reviewed by the courts. And Camp X-Ray is actually a better
> situation than those guys deserve. We are treating them as PWs rather
than
> as non-lawful combatants. But apparently, even that isn't good enough for
you.

"Lawful" ain't gonna cut it, considering all of the recent legislation
rammed through over this terrorism phobia. I believe a lot of this
initial hysteria is now dying down, and people are beginning to look
at much of this in a more rational way. Even several members of the
GOP in Congress are beginning to come around and suggest that the
current regime's policy might really be insanity in action.

I previously wrote:
> Support for the Vietnam War shifted mainly under the same
> >conditions. Like it or not Lowell, it's happening again. "The Times
> >they are a changin'"

> I'm not sure how this relates to what I said above. And it's already
> obsolete as far as what happened in the polls. Besides, rather than
> howling for impeachment, a far better approach to getting rid of the
> so-called "Patriot Act" would be to contact your congresscritter and put
> some heat on it to repeal the worst parts.

I guess we could do that too. But what I wrote is applicable in a lot
of ways, since in the early mid-1960's Americans really believed in
our government's lies and deception, even to the point of giving
Lyndon Johnson carte blanc authority to prosecute a war based on
approving the 'Gulf of Tonkin' resolution, which was based entirely on
fraud, as we know now.

Maybe we should ask some questions now, BEFORE we embark again on a
unilateral war that enjoys no international support, whether or not we
have any case at all that might PROVE that (1) Iraq is an imminent
threat to the United States and must be dealt with in the next few
weeks; (2) Whether or not the allegations of the Iraqi government's
links with al-Queada are valid and backed up by factual evidence; (3)
if Saudi proposals and others within the region might work out
satisfactorily without the blunder of US aggression in starting
another war; and (4) whether the possible catastrophic consequences of
such a war might be far worse that the current realities in place?

> Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we had anti-war protests all
> over the country last weekend (presumably these are protests against what
> the government officials want to do) and so far as I can tell, the only
> arrests (if any) were for things like vandalism or violence or some other
> non-political criminal behavior.

Happy to hear YOU recognize that there is a growing number of US
citizens who are calling into question this insanity. Thank you. Most
of our government's reaction to such protests at this time have more
to do with PR, than what some in government would likely like to do. I
don't doubt that Asscroft would love to incarcerate protesters on the
basis of sedition -- it just wouldn't look good on camera to see such
people being arrested and hauled off by the gestapo and shipped to the
gulag (Camp Xray, or others). We may not be far from that ultimately
happening however, although if it does, then it will most likely be
low key, targeting individuals through the new Office of Homeland
Security. I can likely imagine that because of "national security
concerns", even such names or allegations might not be released. That
seems to be the growing 'catch all' phrase being used these days.

> Meanwhile, Frank Reichert (and the
> "Impeach Bush" crowd) think that this government is violating of "freedom
> of speech" and "peaceable assembly" and "to petition the government for
> redress of grievances". So Frank, what exactly were these "protestors"
> doing if they weren't exercising freedom of speech, assembly and
> petition!!! I brought up some facts and you ignore those facts in your
> response while accusing me of ignoring facts! Good grief, Frank!

Thank you. I feel proud to be considered a dissident in opposition to
this regime. I have no doubt that laws are already on the books that
make all of the above actions, prosecutable under current law. You
haven't really proved much of anything Lowell, only that it is the
regime's best interest not to make Americans aware at this point in
time, what the new laws of the land really are.

As I watched The Shrub's<tm> explanations tonight on the CBS evening
news, I again was astounded that such a toad is in charge of a country
faced with an enormous economic melt down, where the regime's own
policies have largely contributed to that, and then fumble and screw
up words in describing the current stand off with Iraq! It was amazing
to watch "our President" frivolously say, "Iran", then correct
himself, and say "Iraq", and answer the questions in a shallow, hardly
knowledgeable way in describing who America's "allies" really are.
And, this is the man who is in charge of making decisions that could
suck us all into the preverbal black hole!

Most of my economic portfolio is in four sectors, that being the
airline sector, tech sector, automotive sector, and some of my
diversified stocks. All four have been going into the melt down mode
since March of 2002 (four months AFTER the 9/11 tragedy)! The closer
we are coming to this "showdown" with Iraq, the more rapidly all of
these key sectors are rapidly decreasing in value. In other words,
the economy was making corrections following the tragedy of 9/11,
until March 2002, when the uncertainty of the Administration over
declaring unilateral wars against terrorism began to start including
just about everyone that could be drudged up, including this 'Axis of
Evil' blunder.

In the last couple of weeks in fact, all four sectors have shown
incredible downturns in terms of share value, and even more hawkish
economic analysts place the blame largely upon this uncertain war
against Iraq and the direction that Bush is taking in the face of
massive opposition in the international community.

This suggests to me that there really is very little confidence in the
Shrub Regime's<tm> capability for leadership. When the nation's
economic infrastructure is THIS weak, it hardly suggests very much
confidence in the nation's current leadership, or domestic and foreign
policies either.

This war may have the potential for reducing America to a position of
economic isolation, and certainly has the potential for a
restructuring of new geopolitical realities, especially if this 'war'
turns out to be a giant blunder with enormous global repercussions. We
may see such things as the Euro becoming the favoured international
currency, including pricing for petroleum. Since the dollar has
fallen about 25-30 percent against the Euro in the last several
months, that isn't too far off unless we can again recapture our
position of monetary reliability. Even the Japanese Yen has made
substantial gains over the dollar in the last several weeks. And
Japan's economic health is supposed to be in the shit house!

What is strange about this is that after 9/11 we had tremendous
sympathy from almost every nation on the planet. Individuals such as
Vladamir Putin pledged Russia's support, and was one of the very first
heads of state to get on the telephone and call The Shrub<tm>, to
offer whatever assistance he could.

Look where we are today. Our arrogance, shoot from the hip, and
reckless 'go it alone' attitude has managed to screw up so badly that
we have lost key allied support from France, German, Russia and a host
of others in supporting of unilateral war against Iraq (which until
now hasn't been conclusively demonstrated to even be a relevant issue
for US interests or concerns.

Lowell. Support this insanity all you want. For me, I'm a non-taker.
This stinks.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:45:33 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>

To all:

And interesting report forwarded to me.
I haven't thought much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably think
some of it (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how
unneighborly Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can expect
other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with you".

I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not shown a
substantive reason to do so.
Our govt says they have weapons of mass destruction, but there haven't any
to be found.
Our govt says "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really
reliable sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously the
info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would hear about it).
Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey inspectors, check other
there", that too was a dud.
The inspectors on their own found empty warheads in an abandoned storage
facility that everyone forgot about, but that too shows very little for our
govt's cause.
Despite all its resources to prove what it is trying to say, our govt has
not even come up with an Iraqi conspiracy, or document showing it plans harm
on the US (at least at this point, has anyone heard of an Iraqi terrorist?..
Given our actions it may later become a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
Our govt says we cannot let Iraq continue because it might in the future
create and use WOMD, that they are secretly planning all kinds of terrorism.
This is also an unsubstantive argument - one that could be used on any
country at all we don't like. Its an easy thing to do when you don't even
need evidence to substantiate it
And the other pat reasons given for war w/Iraq, are all artificial and are
not even consistent with our treatment of other equally despotic or
dangerous countries. Bush et al, has fixated on Iraq at this point with a
rabid tunnel vision that is feverish.
Lacking any viable foundation for such a war, he has been reduced to coming
up with empty excuses that sound just like Hitler's justifications for
invading Czhechoslovakia and Poland (we can let their people suffer under
that regime and conditions, we need breathing room and stability in that
region, they blew up our radio station, well ok not that last one but it is
sure in coming ;-)

I am thinking about Bush a little bit; what position would we be in had Gore
won the election?
When Clinton was in office we had economic success, shortly before/after
Bush we hit a recession.
Would the twin towers still be there if the relatively softer Gore was in
office? Maybe, as the immediate tensions would not run as high, and our
enemies thought there was some wiggle room to play with us.
Would we be at the brink of a fabricated war? Somehow I don't think so.
It was almost in the cards when Bush was elected, it is so obvious its
embarrassing. He gets back at Iraq almost as a familial grudge, cause
daddy was prevented from finishing the job.

But some of the discussion on this newsgroup entailed socialists trying to
control our war policy. I thought this report was comprehensive and
informative, but I don't know if it is socialist driven, seems sincere to
me. Others here might have a more thorough analysis.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peggy
To: G Triest
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT

"Thorne Anderson is an..award-winning international photojournalist whose
analysis of the situation in Iraq is sobering. I am forwarding this
message..because I know you are concerned about the situation in Iraq and/or
war in general. My hope (and I think, Thorne's) is that you can pass it to
those you know.. for verification and action. Thorne's photos can be found
at
several websites via a Google search. His emailaddress is
tivka@rocketmail.com, should you desire to contact him directly. Please
contact him directly for permission to publish anything he has written."

Regards, Diana
Diana Swancutt
Assistant Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
diana.swancutt@yale.edu

Subject: Eyewitness Account
I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
after spending a month in Iraq. I don't plan to return to Iraq until late
December or early January -- perhaps earlier if it appears that there will
be an attack. I'm really committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even think
about other work in other places until there is some kind of resolution to
the crisis in Iraq.

Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq, but this
was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time in
Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending attack
by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh word for
me. Iraqis are very good at
distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen.

Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go
back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems to
me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in
making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines
while in Iraq, but that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I
do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of stories
those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly worthless at
confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other corporate
media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of my efforts
are now going into reaching alternative media and in supporting anti-war
groups in the states. I hope I can find some time soon to come to the states
for a speaking tour of sorts.

There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with
Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in
Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the U.S.
with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better named
the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the United
States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled out
years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is another
no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to protect the
Kurds, but
while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does
nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying
into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities
there.

Turkey¹s bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. has been
bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past 12 years.
There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago, and
I¹m told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get much or
perhaps any press in the U.S.

It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the
effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The U.S.
has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material in Iraq
(30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the DU is
further contaminated with other radioactive particles including Neptunium
and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all radioactive
materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up in ground water
samples.

I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals. Since
U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six fold in
the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most severe.
The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney, and thyroid
cancers associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).

But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The toll
of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the past
decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the sanctions
recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly discredit
humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements rather than
on the statistics of international
agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of
thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The
Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more than
a million* children under the age of five. But let's put that figure aside,
for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and let's refer
instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions directly for the

excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and
nearly a million Iraqis of all ages.

We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the
September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty figures,
multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a country with one
tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we can get a crude
idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted on the Iraqi
people in the past decade.

The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration fromdiarrhoea
caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the intentional
destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by the United
States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment facilities and
suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before the American entry
into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of Defense document, "Iraq
Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great detail about how
the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent
impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to ³increased incidences, if
not epidemics, of disease."

I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera,
hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now quite
common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and immunities to all
types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky children who manage to
get a sufficient daily
caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea.

Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable
disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of hospitals
to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions. In a hospital in
Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year- old child. After
the boy¹s circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have a congenital
disease which inhibits his blood¹s ability to clot, which results in
excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications when he took
a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning his brain in
his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take regular doses
of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a relatively normal life.
But an order for Factor 8 was put ³on hold² by the United
States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could only
watch the child die.

Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction,
but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and the destruction of
Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are the weapons of greatest
mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad that Dennis Halliday, the
former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in Iraq, took the dramatic step
of resigning his position in protest at the sanctions. ³We are in the
process of destroying an entire society,² Halliday wrote. ³It is as simple
and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.² And Halliday isn¹t
alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in protest and went so
far as to
describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals. These
are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the UN
rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the United
States.

Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a new
war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the
beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East and
the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and
Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile politics
and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S. invasion
within Iraq. It¹s easy to imagine an impending tragedy of enormous
proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up
and take responsibility for stopping it.

Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally
clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S. government
to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I feel the
weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever we can with
our individually small but collectively powerful means to change the course
of
ur government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the
future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the
enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I did
nothing at all to recognize or prevent them.

I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are
living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to
effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary
people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound
like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American
dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a
political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am
appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is already
inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more chaotic and
violent future.

And let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government
pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the
rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction.
But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host of other U.S.
allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many of us would
advocate going to war withTurkey over the brutal repression of its Kurdish
minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S. to bomb Israel
or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons? Let¹s remember
that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in Iraq had declared
that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction capabilities were destroyed.
And let¹s not forget
that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against the
Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On the
contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to
normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer
subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad on
the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq¹s use of chemical weapons, and he
said absolutely nothing about it.

That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very
little weaponry to actually threaten the United States, they do have oil.
According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in
southern Iraq, they may even have the world¹s largest oil reserves,
surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.

Let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in good
conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control its
oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the
place, as I
have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation
of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and
window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely
believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in
mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes and
not simply
through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to
ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign policy
aims.

While the American media fixates on the evils of the ³repressive regime of
Saddam Hussein,² both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are we
reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000 were
killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000). I
simply don¹t believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with the
Iraqi people and
say from their hearts that they deserve another war.

I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the
most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in
the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international
conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly
the values that are most imperiled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as a
citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest
easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to
make a difference.

Love, Thorn

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:00:23 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Yeah, yeah..."Da sancshuns in Iraq are killing da babies!" Sorry, take a
look at http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqkrd1.htm

The Kurds get 13% of the money from the "Oil for food" program and use it
to take care of the people (13% of the total Iraq population). Saddam
Hussein gets the other 87% and uses it to build his "palaces" and build his
army and WMD. So, the Kurds have a lower infant mortality rate (and better
living standards, etc.) than the rest of Iraq. Gee, what a surprise. But
some dipwad goes to Iraq and swallows the official government line hook,
line and sinker and we're supposed to believe everything he says as gospel
truth.

As for everyone being hurt by DU, you have to understand that if DU has a
half-life of 4.5 million years, that means that it isn't very
radioactive. The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
which masquerades as Iodine. Strontium has a half life that is measured in
weeks. You get a little bit of that stuff in you, your thyroid sucks it up
and within a few weeks, half of it has degraded (radioactively) into
whatever Strontium degrades into and each atom that's degraded has fired
off some ionizing radiation through your thyroid. You've got to get
something like 4.5 million *times* as much uranium into you to get the same
kind of radiation. (Actually, if the Strontium half-life is 2 weeks--I'm
too lazy to look it up but that's what I remember, then you really need 25
* 4.5m = 112.5million times as much uranium. If the Strontium half-life is
4 weeks, then you "only" need 56.25million times as much uranium to have
the same trouble as you'd get from some Strontium.)

On top of all that, DU isn't used in bombs (as alleged by this guy) because
there's no reason to use it. A plain ol' cheap steel casing works just
fine. And if you used DU instead of steel, you'd probably have a heavier
bomb--which means that a 200 lb steel bomb has a lot more explosive in it
than a 200lb DU-cased bomb. So whatever advantage you gain from the
heavier fragments off the DU casing is lost in the explosive
power. Besides, the military would rather spend the extra money on
guidance systems. No DU is only used in armor-piercing bullets from cannon
(like on tanks or artillery or airplanes).

Here's a web site about DU with some links to studies.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

And here's one of the studies it links to, where they implanted DU pellets
into rats and then looked at where the DU went at 1 day, 1 month, and 18
months. They also looked at things like how much uranium went out in the
urine and the feces. They also mention some other studies that looked at
things like what happens when someone eats food contaminated with Uranium
and what happens when someone breaths air that contains uranium dust. The
studies of uranium miners seemed to be relatively benign (I think I would
have rather been a uranium miner than a coal miner).

http://www.geocities.com/militarytoxics/01duscience.pdf

While I wouldn't want to spend much time around that stuff, it really
doesn't sound like the problems that this "eyewitness" and other are
attributing to DU are caused by DU. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good
meal at the best restaurant in Spokane (ok, so I'm somewhat of a cheapskate
:-) that within 2 years of Iraq being liberated, we find out from a
relatively unbiased source that there was some plant in Iraq that was
spewing some toxic chemical (I don't know what it will be: dioxin, arsenic,
who knows) and that was what was causing all the birth defects, etc. that
these "eyewitnesses" have been reporting.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 14:45 01/26/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>To all:
>
>
>And interesting report forwarded to me.
>I haven't thought much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably
>think some of it (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how
>unneighborly Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can
>expect other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with you".
>
>I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not shown a
>substantive reason to do so.
>Our govt says they have weapons of mass destruction, but there haven't any
>to be found.
>Our govt says "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really
>reliable sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
>information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously the
>info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would hear about
it).
>Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey inspectors, check other
>there", that too was a dud.
>The inspectors on their own found empty warheads in an abandoned storage
>facility that everyone forgot about, but that too shows very little for
>our govt's cause.
>Despite all its resources to prove what it is trying to say, our govt has
>not even come up with an Iraqi conspiracy, or document showing it plans
>harm on the US (at least at this point, has anyone heard of an Iraqi
>terrorist?.. Given our actions it may later become a self-fulfilling
prophecy.)
>Our govt says we cannot let Iraq continue because it might in the future
>create and use WOMD, that they are secretly planning all kinds of
>terrorism. This is also an unsubstantive argument - one that could be used
>on any country at all we don't like. Its an easy thing to do when you
>don't even need evidence to substantiate it
>And the other pat reasons given for war w/Iraq, are all artificial and are
>not even consistent with our treatment of other equally despotic or
>dangerous countries. Bush et al, has fixated on Iraq at this point with a
>rabid tunnel vision that is feverish.
>Lacking any viable foundation for such a war, he has been reduced to
>coming up with empty excuses that sound just like Hitler's justifications
>for invading Czhechoslovakia and Poland (we can let their people suffer
>under that regime and conditions, we need breathing room and stability in
>that region, they blew up our radio station, well ok not that last one but
>it is sure in coming ;-)
>
>I am thinking about Bush a little bit; what position would we be in had
>Gore won the election?
>When Clinton was in office we had economic success, shortly before/after
>Bush we hit a recession.
>Would the twin towers still be there if the relatively softer Gore was in
>office? Maybe, as the immediate tensions would not run as high, and our
>enemies thought there was some wiggle room to play with us.
>Would we be at the brink of a fabricated war? Somehow I don't think so.
>It was almost in the cards when Bush was elected, it is so obvious its
>embarrassing. He gets back at Iraq almost as a familial grudge, cause
>daddy was prevented from finishing the job.
>
>But some of the discussion on this newsgroup entailed socialists trying to
>control our war policy. I thought this report was comprehensive and
>informative, but I don't know if it is socialist driven, seems sincere to
>me. Others here might have a more thorough analysis.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:angels@ulster.net>Peggy
>To: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
>Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:28 AM
>Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
>
>
>
>"Thorne Anderson is an..award-winning international photojournalist whose
>analysis of the situation in Iraq is sobering. I am forwarding this
>message..because I know you are concerned about the situation in Iraq
>and/or war in general. My hope (and I think, Thorne's) is that you can
>pass it to those you know.. for verification and action. Thorne's photos
>can be found at
>several websites via a Google search. His emailaddress is
><mailto:tivka@rocketmail.com>tivka@rocketmail.com, should you desire to
>contact him directly. Please contact him directly for permission to
>publish anything he has written."
>
>Regards, Diana
>Diana Swancutt
>Assistant Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
><mailto:diana.swancutt@yale.edu>diana.swancutt@yale.edu
>
>Subject: Eyewitness Account
>I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
>after spending a month in Iraq. I don't plan to return to Iraq until late
>December or early January -- perhaps earlier if it appears that there will
>be an attack. I'm really committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even
>think about other work in other places until there is some kind of
>resolution to the crisis in Iraq.
>
>Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq, but
>this was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time
>in Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending
>attack by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh
>word for me. Iraqis are very good at
>distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen.
>
>Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go
>back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems
>to me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in
>making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines
>while in Iraq, but that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I
>do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of
>stories those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly
>worthless at confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the
>Middle East.
>
> I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other
> corporate media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of
> my efforts are now going into reaching alternative media and in
> supporting anti-war groups in the states. I hope I can find some time
> soon to come to the states for a speaking tour of sorts.
>
>There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with
>Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in
>Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the
>U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better
>named the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the
>United States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled
>out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is
>another no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to
>protect the Kurds, but
>while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does
>nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying
>into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities there.
>
>Turkey¹s bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. has been
>bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past 12 years.
>There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago,
>and I¹m told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get
>much or perhaps any press in the U.S.
>
> It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
> Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the
> effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The
> U.S. has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material
> in Iraq (30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the
> DU is further contaminated with other radioactive particles including
> Neptunium and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all
> radioactive materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up
> in ground water samples.
>
>I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals.
>Since U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six
>fold in the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most
>severe. The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney,
>and thyroid cancers associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).
>
>But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The
>toll of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the
>past decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the
>sanctions recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly
>discredit humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements
>rather than on the statistics of international
>agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
>reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of
>thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The
>Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more
>than a million* children under the age of five. But let's put that figure
>aside, for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and
>let's refer instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions
>directly for the
>excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and
>nearly a million Iraqis of all ages.
>
>We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the
>September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty
>figures, multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a
>country with one tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we
>can get a crude idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted
>on the Iraqi people in the past decade.
>
> The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration
> fromdiarrhoea caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the
> intentional destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by
> the United States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment
> facilities and suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before
> the American entry into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of
> Defense document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great
> detail about how
> the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent
>impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to ³increased incidences, if
>not epidemics, of disease."
>
> I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera,
>hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now
>quite common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and
>immunities to all types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky
>children who manage to get a sufficient daily
>caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea.
>
>Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable
>disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
>Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of
>hospitals to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions. In a
>hospital in Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year- old
>child. After the boy¹s circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have
>a congenital disease which inhibits his blood¹s ability to clot, which
>results in excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications
>when he took a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning
>his brain in his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take
>regular doses of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a
>relatively normal life. But an order for Factor 8 was put ³on hold² by the
>United
> States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could
> only watch the child die.
>
> Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass
> destruction, but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and
> the destruction of Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are
> the weapons of greatest mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad
> that Dennis Halliday, the former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in
> Iraq, took the dramatic step of resigning his position in protest at the
> sanctions. ³We are in the process of destroying an entire society,²
> Halliday wrote. ³It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal
> and immoral.² And Halliday isn¹t alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck,
> also resigned in protest and went so far as to
>describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals.
>These are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the
>UN rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the
>United States.
>
>Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
>sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a
>new war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the
>beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East
>and the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel
>and Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile
>politics and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S.
>invasion within Iraq. It¹s easy to imagine an impending tragedy of
>enormous proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up
>and take responsibility for stopping it.
>
>Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally
>clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S.
>government to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I
>feel the weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever
>we can with our individually small but collectively powerful means to
>change the course of
>ur government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the
>future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the
>enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I
>did nothing at all to recognize or prevent them.
>
>I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are
>living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to
>effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary
>people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound
>like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American
>dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a
>political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am
>appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is
>already inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more
>chaotic and violent future.
>
>And let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government
>pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the
>rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass
>destruction. But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host
>of other U.S. allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many
>of us would advocate going to war withTurkey over the brutal repression of
>its Kurdish minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S.
>to bomb Israel or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons?
>Let¹s remember that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in
>Iraq had declared that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction
>capabilities were destroyed. And let¹s not forget
>that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against
>the Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On
>the contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to
>normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer
>subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad
>on the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq¹s use of chemical weapons, and
>he said absolutely nothing about it.
>
>That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very
>little weaponry to actually threaten the United States, they do have oil.
>According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in
>southern Iraq, they may even have the world¹s largest oil reserves,
>surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.
>
>Let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in
>good conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control
>its oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
>Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
>sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the
>place, as I
>have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation
>of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and
>window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely
>believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in
>mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes
>and not simply
>through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to
>ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign
>policy aims.
>
>While the American media fixates on the evils of the ³repressive regime of
>Saddam Hussein,² both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are
>we reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000
>were killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000).
>I simply don¹t believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with
>the Iraqi people and
>say from their hearts that they deserve another war.
>
>I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the
>most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in
>the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international
>conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly
>the values that are most imperiled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as
>a citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest
>easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to
>make a difference.
>
> Love, Thorn

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:15:44 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: "Peggy & Richard Fusco" <angels@ulster.net>

Thanx Lowell, this is the kind of critical feedback I was looking for.
Yes the DU commentary seemed a bit off kilter. The stuff is good for
transmission of the highest momentum transfers, like armour piercing
ordinance, not for shrapnel.

Your article though didn't address the condition of the people in Iraq
proper though. It just talked about the boon the Kurds are having.
So the reporter may still have a point there.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT

Yeah, yeah..."Da sancshuns in Iraq are killing da babies!" Sorry, take a
look at http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqkrd1.htm

The Kurds get 13% of the money from the "Oil for food" program and use it
to take care of the people (13% of the total Iraq population). Saddam
Hussein gets the other 87% and uses it to build his "palaces" and build his
army and WMD. So, the Kurds have a lower infant mortality rate (and better
living standards, etc.) than the rest of Iraq. Gee, what a surprise. But
some dipwad goes to Iraq and swallows the official government line hook,
line and sinker and we're supposed to believe everything he says as gospel
truth.

As for everyone being hurt by DU, you have to understand that if DU has a
half-life of 4.5 million years, that means that it isn't very
radioactive. The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
which masquerades as Iodine. Strontium has a half life that is measured in
weeks. You get a little bit of that stuff in you, your thyroid sucks it up
and within a few weeks, half of it has degraded (radioactively) into
whatever Strontium degrades into and each atom that's degraded has fired
off some ionizing radiation through your thyroid. You've got to get
something like 4.5 million *times* as much uranium into you to get the same
kind of radiation. (Actually, if the Strontium half-life is 2 weeks--I'm
too lazy to look it up but that's what I remember, then you really need 25
* 4.5m = 112.5million times as much uranium. If the Strontium half-life is
4 weeks, then you "only" need 56.25million times as much uranium to have
the same trouble as you'd get from some Strontium.)

On top of all that, DU isn't used in bombs (as alleged by this guy) because
there's no reason to use it. A plain ol' cheap steel casing works just
fine. And if you used DU instead of steel, you'd probably have a heavier
bomb--which means that a 200 lb steel bomb has a lot more explosive in it
than a 200lb DU-cased bomb. So whatever advantage you gain from the
heavier fragments off the DU casing is lost in the explosive
power. Besides, the military would rather spend the extra money on
guidance systems. No DU is only used in armor-piercing bullets from cannon
(like on tanks or artillery or airplanes).

Here's a web site about DU with some links to studies.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

And here's one of the studies it links to, where they implanted DU pellets
into rats and then looked at where the DU went at 1 day, 1 month, and 18
months. They also looked at things like how much uranium went out in the
urine and the feces. They also mention some other studies that looked at
things like what happens when someone eats food contaminated with Uranium
and what happens when someone breaths air that contains uranium dust. The
studies of uranium miners seemed to be relatively benign (I think I would
have rather been a uranium miner than a coal miner).

http://www.geocities.com/militarytoxics/01duscience.pdf

While I wouldn't want to spend much time around that stuff, it really
doesn't sound like the problems that this "eyewitness" and other are
attributing to DU are caused by DU. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good
meal at the best restaurant in Spokane (ok, so I'm somewhat of a cheapskate
:-) that within 2 years of Iraq being liberated, we find out from a
relatively unbiased source that there was some plant in Iraq that was
spewing some toxic chemical (I don't know what it will be: dioxin, arsenic,
who knows) and that was what was causing all the birth defects, etc. that
these "eyewitnesses" have been reporting.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 14:45 01/26/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>To all:
>
>
>And interesting report forwarded to me.
>I haven't thought much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably
>think some of it (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how
>unneighborly Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can
>expect other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with you".
>
>I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not shown a
>substantive reason to do so.
>Our govt says they have weapons of mass destruction, but there haven't any
>to be found.
>Our govt says "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really
>reliable sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
>information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously the
>info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would hear about
it).
>Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey inspectors, check other
>there", that too was a dud.
>The inspectors on their own found empty warheads in an abandoned storage
>facility that everyone forgot about, but that too shows very little for
>our govt's cause.
>Despite all its resources to prove what it is trying to say, our govt has
>not even come up with an Iraqi conspiracy, or document showing it plans
>harm on the US (at least at this point, has anyone heard of an Iraqi
>terrorist?.. Given our actions it may later become a self-fulfilling
prophecy.)
>Our govt says we cannot let Iraq continue because it might in the future
>create and use WOMD, that they are secretly planning all kinds of
>terrorism. This is also an unsubstantive argument - one that could be used
>on any country at all we don't like. Its an easy thing to do when you
>don't even need evidence to substantiate it
>And the other pat reasons given for war w/Iraq, are all artificial and are
>not even consistent with our treatment of other equally despotic or
>dangerous countries. Bush et al, has fixated on Iraq at this point with a
>rabid tunnel vision that is feverish.
>Lacking any viable foundation for such a war, he has been reduced to
>coming up with empty excuses that sound just like Hitler's justifications
>for invading Czhechoslovakia and Poland (we can let their people suffer
>under that regime and conditions, we need breathing room and stability in
>that region, they blew up our radio station, well ok not that last one but
>it is sure in coming ;-)
>
>I am thinking about Bush a little bit; what position would we be in had
>Gore won the election?
>When Clinton was in office we had economic success, shortly before/after
>Bush we hit a recession.
>Would the twin towers still be there if the relatively softer Gore was in
>office? Maybe, as the immediate tensions would not run as high, and our
>enemies thought there was some wiggle room to play with us.
>Would we be at the brink of a fabricated war? Somehow I don't think so.
>It was almost in the cards when Bush was elected, it is so obvious its
>embarrassing. He gets back at Iraq almost as a familial grudge, cause
>daddy was prevented from finishing the job.
>
>But some of the discussion on this newsgroup entailed socialists trying to
>control our war policy. I thought this report was comprehensive and
>informative, but I don't know if it is socialist driven, seems sincere to
>me. Others here might have a more thorough analysis.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:angels@ulster.net>Peggy
>To: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
>Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:28 AM
>Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
>
>
>
>"Thorne Anderson is an..award-winning international photojournalist whose
>analysis of the situation in Iraq is sobering. I am forwarding this
>message..because I know you are concerned about the situation in Iraq
>and/or war in general. My hope (and I think, Thorne's) is that you can
>pass it to those you know.. for verification and action. Thorne's photos
>can be found at
>several websites via a Google search. His emailaddress is
><mailto:tivka@rocketmail.com>tivka@rocketmail.com, should you desire to
>contact him directly. Please contact him directly for permission to
>publish anything he has written."
>
>Regards, Diana
>Diana Swancutt
>Assistant Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
><mailto:diana.swancutt@yale.edu>diana.swancutt@yale.edu
>
>Subject: Eyewitness Account
>I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
>after spending a month in Iraq. I don't plan to return to Iraq until late
>December or early January -- perhaps earlier if it appears that there will
>be an attack. I'm really committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even
>think about other work in other places until there is some kind of
>resolution to the crisis in Iraq.
>
>Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq, but
>this was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time
>in Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending
>attack by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh
>word for me. Iraqis are very good at
>distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen.
>
>Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go
>back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems
>to me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in
>making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines
>while in Iraq, but that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I
>do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of
>stories those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly
>worthless at confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the
>Middle East.
>
> I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other
> corporate media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of
> my efforts are now going into reaching alternative media and in
> supporting anti-war groups in the states. I hope I can find some time
> soon to come to the states for a speaking tour of sorts.
>
>There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with
>Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in
>Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the
>U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better
>named the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the
>United States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled
>out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is
>another no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to
>protect the Kurds, but
>while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does
>nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying
>into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities there.
>
>Turkey¹s bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. has been
>bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past 12 years.
>There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago,
>and I¹m told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get
>much or perhaps any press in the U.S.
>
> It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
> Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the
> effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The
> U.S. has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material
> in Iraq (30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the
> DU is further contaminated with other radioactive particles including
> Neptunium and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all
> radioactive materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up
> in ground water samples.
>
>I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals.
>Since U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six
>fold in the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most
>severe. The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney,
>and thyroid cancers associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).
>
>But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The
>toll of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the
>past decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the
>sanctions recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly
>discredit humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements
>rather than on the statistics of international
>agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
>reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of
>thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The
>Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more
>than a million* children under the age of five. But let's put that figure
>aside, for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and
>let's refer instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions
>directly for the
>excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and
>nearly a million Iraqis of all ages.
>
>We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the
>September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty
>figures, multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a
>country with one tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we
>can get a crude idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted
>on the Iraqi people in the past decade.
>
> The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration
> fromdiarrhoea caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the
> intentional destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by
> the United States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment
> facilities and suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before
> the American entry into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of
> Defense document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great
> detail about how
> the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent
>impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to ³increased incidences, if
>not epidemics, of disease."
>
> I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera,
>hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now
>quite common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and
>immunities to all types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky
>children who manage to get a sufficient daily
>caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea.
>
>Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable
>disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
>Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of
>hospitals to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions. In a
>hospital in Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year- old
>child. After the boy¹s circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have
>a congenital disease which inhibits his blood¹s ability to clot, which
>results in excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications
>when he took a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning
>his brain in his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take
>regular doses of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a
>relatively normal life. But an order for Factor 8 was put ³on hold² by the
>United
> States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could
> only watch the child die.
>
> Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass
> destruction, but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and
> the destruction of Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are
> the weapons of greatest mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad
> that Dennis Halliday, the former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in
> Iraq, took the dramatic step of resigning his position in protest at the
> sanctions. ³We are in the process of destroying an entire society,²
> Halliday wrote. ³It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal
> and immoral.² And Halliday isn¹t alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck,
> also resigned in protest and went so far as to
>describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals.
>These are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the
>UN rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the
>United States.
>
>Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
>sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a
>new war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the
>beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East
>and the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel
>and Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile
>politics and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S.
>invasion within Iraq. It¹s easy to imagine an impending tragedy of
>enormous proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up
>and take responsibility for stopping it.
>
>Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally
>clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S.
>government to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I
>feel the weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever
>we can with our individually small but collectively powerful means to
>change the course of
>ur government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the
>future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the
>enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I
>did nothing at all to recognize or prevent them.
>
>I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are
>living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to
>effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary
>people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound
>like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American
>dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a
>political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am
>appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is
>already inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more
>chaotic and violent future.
>
>And let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government
>pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the
>rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass
>destruction. But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host
>of other U.S. allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many
>of us would advocate going to war withTurkey over the brutal repression of
>its Kurdish minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S.
>to bomb Israel or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons?
>Let¹s remember that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in
>Iraq had declared that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction
>capabilities were destroyed. And let¹s not forget
>that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against
>the Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On
>the contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to
>normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer
>subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad
>on the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq¹s use of chemical weapons, and
>he said absolutely nothing about it.
>
>That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very
>little weaponry to actually threaten the United States, they do have oil.
>According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in
>southern Iraq, they may even have the world¹s largest oil reserves,
>surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.
>
>Let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in
>good conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control
>its oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
>Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
>sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the
>place, as I
>have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation
>of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and
>window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely
>believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in
>mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes
>and not simply
>through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to
>ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign
>policy aims.
>
>While the American media fixates on the evils of the ³repressive regime of
>Saddam Hussein,² both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are
>we reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000
>were killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000).
>I simply don¹t believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with
>the Iraqi people and
>say from their hearts that they deserve another war.
>
>I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the
>most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in
>the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international
>conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly
>the values that are most imperiled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as
>a citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest
>easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to
>make a difference.
>
> Love, Thorn

-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER

To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org

URLs for Liberty Northwest:
Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:52:27 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
which masquerades as Iodine."

No, as calcium.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:04:53 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Thanks Robert.

Oops. Then what is it that masquerades as Iodine? Or is it even a
radioactive isotope of iodine that one should be worried about. And what
are the half-lives of Strontium and whatever it is that you want to take
iodine tablets for?

Lowell
Robert Goodman wrote, in part:
>"The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
>which masquerades as Iodine."
>
>No, as calcium.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:17:38 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Gary,

No, the article I pointed to didn't address the condition of the people in
Iraq. It's pretty much generally assumed that the people in Iraq are in
bad shape. The question, however, is "Why are the people in Iraq in such
bad shape?" If it is because of the sanctions, then the Kurds should be in
just as bad shape as the people in Iraq (or at least there should be very
little difference). But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant mortality
rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it that
Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food" program
to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools, roads
and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?

Another data point that I didn't mention (because I wasn't--and won't--take
the time to search the internet for references) is that Saddam has been
caught shipping food and supplies out of Iraq to get hard currency. If
it's like most other smuggling operations, we only found a fraction of the
stuff that got smuggled (and chances are, it's actually better than most
since several of the countries that border Iraq wouldn't mind if the
sanctions don't work and have no problem profiting from a little smuggling).

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>Thanx Lowell, this is the kind of critical feedback I was looking for.
>Yes the DU commentary seemed a bit off kilter. The stuff is good for
>transmission of the highest momentum transfers, like armour piercing
>ordinance, not for shrapnel.
>
>Your article though didn't address the condition of the people in Iraq
>proper though. It just talked about the boon the Kurds are having.
>So the reporter may still have a point there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:03:09 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> Or is it even a
> radioactive isotope of iodine that one should be worried about. And
what
> are the half-lives of Strontium and whatever it is that you want to
take
> iodine tablets for?
>
> Lowell

Of 90Sr, 28 years. Most iodine isotopes have half-lives of days or
hours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:58:55 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Thanks Robert. So with a half-life of, say, 4 days, in 12 days only 12.5%
of the original iodine isotope (that had the 4 day half-life) would be
left. That's why I seem to remember a two to three week window when you
would worry about it.

Lowell
At 10:03 01/27/03 -0500, you wrote:
> > Or is it even a
> > radioactive isotope of iodine that one should be worried about. And
>what
> > are the half-lives of Strontium and whatever it is that you want to
>take
> > iodine tablets for?
> >
> > Lowell
>
>Of 90Sr, 28 years. Most iodine isotopes have half-lives of days or
>hours.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:48:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...

> But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
> lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
> while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant
mortality
> rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
> sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it that
> Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food"
program
> to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
> been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools, roads
> and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?

Could be, but maybe not. Maybe a better explanation, if the article
Gary posted can be believed as even remotely accurate, might be that
the "dirty nuke" bombs that the US and Britain are dropping, aren't
dropping on the Kurds, but other Iraqi government and civilian
targets! Ever considered that possibility? Also, possibly the Kurds
are receiving covert military, medical and humanitarian aid from the
US and other sources that might help explain the discrepancy. As I
understand it judging from mainstream sources of news media, the Kurd
resistance is a key factor in the NEW Iraqi regime once the current
dictatorship is overthrown.

The allegation in the article that the US is even dropping dirty bombs
laced with degenerated nuclear waste is an abomination against US
foreign policy and certainly would amongst reasonable men be
considered along the lines of atrocities that any rogue state might
entertain. I am surprised you won't take the time to do some research
into this before placing all of the blame all on the current Iraqi
government.

This is outrageous if the US government is really doing any of this!
No wonder the US government's official policy is to oppose an
international court of justice for war crimes!

I'm not saying it's all true either. But if there is any truth to
this, then I'm not signing on to any of this aggression. Thankfully,
US opinion polls are starting to shift against the Shrub Regime's<tm>
'war no matter what the facts are' strategy. Aside from the UK, we're
really going to be standing alone on this one, and the consequences
could be disastrous! (As they should be!).

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:29:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest forwarded this message to everyone...

> To all: And interesting report forwarded to me.I haven't thought
> much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably think some of it
> (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how unneighborly
> Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can expect
> other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with
> you". I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not
> shown a substantive reason to do so.Our govt says they have weapons
> of mass destruction, but there haven't any to be found.Our govt says
> "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really reliable
> sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
> information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously
> the info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would
> hear about it).Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey
> inspectors, check other there", that too was a dud.

Gary, I've read and re-read this article that you posted a second
time. If even half of these atrocities are true, and sanctioned and
known by the US government and our intelligence apparatus, I am
shocked! This is far worse than even I suspected it might be.

I believe there is some veracity to this, if the statistics from the
UN can be believed to be accurate.

I truly hope many others on this list had the opportunity to really
read the contents of this article. You have to wonder who the "Rough
State" really is, or why the US government itself should not be
included on such a list?

Thanks a lot for making this available. I'll save it for future
reference as well. It ain't over until it's over!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:35:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest forwarded this message to everyone...

> To all: And interesting report forwarded to me.I haven't thought
> much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably think some of it
> (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how unneighborly
> Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can expect
> other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with
> you". I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not
> shown a substantive reason to do so.Our govt says they have weapons
> of mass destruction, but there haven't any to be found.Our govt says
> "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really reliable
> sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
> information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously
> the info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would
> hear about it).Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey
> inspectors, check other there", that too was a dud.

Gary, I've read and re-read this article that you posted a second
time. If even half of these atrocities are true, and sanctioned and
knX-Mozilla-Status: 0009nt and our intelligence apparatus, I am
shocked! This is far worse than even I suspected it might be.

I believe there is some veracity to this, if the statistics from the
UN can be believed to be accurate.

I truly hope many others on this list had the opportunity to really
read the contents of this article. You have to wonder who the "Rough
State" really is, or why the US government itself should not be
included on such a list?

Thanks a lot for making this available. I'll save it for future
reference as well. It ain't over until it's over!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:35:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...

> But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
> lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
> while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant
mortality
> rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
> sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it that
> Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food"
program
> to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
> been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools, roads
> and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?

Could be, but maybe not. Maybe a better explanation, if the article
Gary posted can be believed as even remotely accurate, might be that
the "dirty nuke" bombs that the US and Britain are dropping, aren't
dropping on the Kurds, but other Iraqi government and civilian
targets! Ever considered that possibility? Also, possibly the Kurds
are receiving covert military, medical and humanitarian aid from the
US and other sources that might help explain the discrepancy. As I
understand it judging from mainstream sources of news media, the Kurd
resistance is a key factor in the NEW Iraqi regime once the current
dictatorship is overthrown.

The allegation in the article that the US is even dropping dirty bombs
laced with degenerated nuclear waste is an abomination against US
foreign policy and certainly would amongst reasonable men be
considered along the lines of atrocities that any rogue state might
entertain. I am surprised you won't take the time to do some research
into this before placing all of the blame all on the current Iraqi
government.

This is outrageous if the US government is really doing any of this!
No wonder the US government's official policy is to oppose an
international court of justice for war crimes!

I'm not saying it's all true either. But if there is any truth to
this, then I'm not signing on to any of this aggression. Thankfully,
US opinion polls are starting to shift against the Shrub Regime's<tm>
'war no matter what the facts are' strategy. Aside from the UK, we're
really going to be standing alone on this one, and the consequences
could be disastrous! (As they should be!).

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:01:17 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's another article about Northern Iraq. From The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/061801/rubin061801.html

Greetings again Frank,
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...
>
> > But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
> > lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
> > while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant
mortality
> > rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
> > sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it
that
> > Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food"
program
> > to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
> > been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools,
roads
> > and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?
>
>Could be, but maybe not. Maybe a better explanation, if the article
>Gary posted can be believed as even remotely accurate, might be that
>the "dirty nuke" bombs that the US and Britain are dropping, aren't
>dropping on the Kurds, but other Iraqi government and civilian
>targets! Ever considered that possibility? Also, possibly the Kurds
>are receiving covert military, medical and humanitarian aid from the
>US and other sources that might help explain the discrepancy. As I
>understand it judging from mainstream sources of news media, the Kurd
>resistance is a key factor in the NEW Iraqi regime once the current
>dictatorship is overthrown.

Let me see. Gary posted an article by someone with no apparent medical,
scientific, or other similar expertise. Therefore, he took at face value
the claims made by Iraqi doctors or whoever (probably accompanied by
government informers, so the question of whether he got the truth or a
government "line" is not even explored). And never mind that there are
some other pieces of information that show that these claims are
unlikely. Frank seems to think that this theory is a "better explanation"
which just needs a few more leaps of faith to keep the theory on
track. The first leap is that the US and Britain "might" be dropping
"dirty nuke" bombs which no one in Congress or the Pentagon, or the UK
parliament (presumably through at least two administrations) seems to have
noticed we were building. The second leap is that such "dirty nuke" bombs
even make sense from a military point of view. The third is that such
"dirty nuke" bombs could be deployed without someone in the press finding
out about it and screaming bloody murder.

>The allegation in the article that the US is even dropping dirty bombs
>laced with degenerated nuclear waste is an abomination against US
>foreign policy and certainly would amongst reasonable men be
>considered along the lines of atrocities that any rogue state might
>entertain. I am surprised you won't take the time to do some research
>into this before placing all of the blame all on the current Iraqi
>government.
>
>This is outrageous if the US government is really doing any of this!
>No wonder the US government's official policy is to oppose an
>international court of justice for war crimes!

Well, why not. If Frank is going to make all the leaps of faith regarding
the military deploying "dirty nukes", why not go from an "allegation in the
article" in one paragraph to "This is outrageous...No wonder the US
government's official policy..."

>I'm not saying it's all true either. But if there is any truth to
>this, then I'm not signing on to any of this aggression.

So, you're not saying it's all true, but you're plenty ready to get all
worked up about it. And why would you bother saying that "if there is any
truth" that you aren't "signing on to any of this aggression" when as near
as I can tell, you aren't "signing on to" what you call "aggression"
regardless? I mean, I can't actually believe that you've changed your mind
and you'll now support cleaning out Iraq if these allegations about US and
Britain "dirty nukes" turn out to be false.

> Thankfully,
>US opinion polls are starting to shift against the Shrub Regime's<tm>
>'war no matter what the facts are' strategy. Aside from the UK, we're
>really going to be standing alone on this one, and the consequences
>could be disastrous! (As they should be!).

You mean, aside from the UK, and Kuwait, and Qatar and Turkey and Jordan
and Poland and Romania and Italy and Spain and.... BTW. I suspect that
the military strength of several of these European nations are higher than
the military strength of France and possibly greater than that of Germany.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: HR 124 Handgun Licensing andRegistration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:01:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...

> But if HR 124 passes and is strongly identified with the
> Democrats, they will be toast in their districts--even if they voted
> against it.
> The rest of my discussion below about the chances of the AW ban passing
> could be summarized as follows: if we're going stop it, we'll have to stop
> it in the House. I don't like saying that. But it's the truth.

Ok, I see your point, and I have to agree. I also don't believe expending
too much energy at the expense of missing the chance of defeating
continuation of the AW Ban is a good idea.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fundamentals of Liberty (fwd)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:49:12 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: libNW <libnw@immosys.com>

Fundamentals of Liberty: Law and Liberty in America

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Halbrooks/halbrooks13.html

by Jacob Halbrooks

The American Revolution was unique among wars because it resulted in more
than a
mere change of government; it was a revolution of ideology. New ideas had
been
taking root in America . Ideas that said a man should be free to live his
life
as he so chooses. Ideas that said that government is bound by the same rules
of
nature as everyone else. The main idea, of course, was liberty. The
philosophy
of classical liberalism drove men to leave their wives and children at home
and
pick up a rifle, well knowing that they might never see their loved ones
again.
The United States of America was born, not so that one privileged class
could
better rule over other people, but in order that people could be free of
such
unjust government control. Unfortunately, the spirit of the revolution was
never
brought to its logical end and has thus waned in America, to the point that
now
the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence pales in
comparison to
the tyranny people face today.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it
is a
dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington's words embody
the
classical liberal attitude toward government: it is at best a necessary
evil.
The only proper function of government, according to the Founding Fathers,
is
the protection of life and liberty. The sovereignty of government is solely
derived from a voluntary union of people, and the same natural laws of
ethics
bind the politician as much as the farmer or merchant. This idea was a
fundamental change from the foundation of governments in the past, which
generally proclaimed the state to be the source of law. The individual holds
the
same natural rights whether a government exists or not, and the Founding
Fathers
sought to secure these liberties by explicit limitations on government. This
was
indeed a new experiment, but one that has proved that no matter how
initially
constrained tyranny is, so long as people mistake it as just, it will
eventually
grow larger.

It says a lot about the general temperament around 1787 that the
Constitution,
which was the framework for a more powerful central government than provided
under the Articles of Confederation, required much effort on its supporters'
behalf to pass. Patriots such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee
vehemently
opposed the Constitution, and eventually the famous compromise between
supporters and opponents took shape in the Bill of Rights. The most popular
argument against including the Bill of Rights was that it was superfluous,
in
that the Constitution already provided no authority for violating the rights
therein. However, such rights as freedom of the press, the right to bear
arms,
and the right to a trial by jury were deemed too important to rest on
interpretation, and they were provided for explicitly.

Clearly, much has changed since the Revolution. Now, people need the
government's permission to buy a firearm, and only those firearms that it
permits. Trial by jury is a farce, as juries are told they must not question
the
legitimacy of the government's law. As "artists" defend their tax-funded
paintings of feces-smeared crucifixes as freedom of speech, about half of
the
people's wealth is confiscated in taxation. A central bank is the monopoly
provider of fiat money, which it inflates to benefit bankers and politicians
at
the expense of the people. And all the while, we are told to be grateful for
the
freedom the government allows us. This downfall in liberty is the result of
a
shift in philosophy of the people from classical liberalism to modern
liberalism.

The modern theory of government, which goes almost unchallenged in all
mainstream forums, is that government is a legitimate means for organizing
society. In the revolutionary era, debate concerned whether government was
necessary at all for a certain function and how it would affect the people's
liberties. Now the debate is not if the government should be involved in
something, but rather what it should be doing about it. We hear on one side
that
the government should hold Social Security payments itself, and we hear from
the
other side that a portion of these payments should be invested in stocks.
But we
rarely hear anyone submit that Social Security is not a proper function of
government to begin with. People are not asking the right questions anymore.

Concomitant with the increase of government power and infringement of the
rights
of the people has been the acceptance of democracy as a valid source of law.
Natural law has been replaced with majority rule. The ramifications of such
a
shift in philosophy is that individual rights are less secure. If law is
dependent only upon the will of a majority of people, then rights are
meaningless.

Natural law may seem an anachronistic concept to many people today who
deride it
as unscientific. But natural law is precisely science. Natural laws are
those
unchanging relationships that we observe in the world around us. They are
freely
accessible to all and must be found by observation, reason, and
experimentation.
The natural laws of forces and mechanics are included in the science of
physics.
The natural laws of matter are included in the science of chemistry.
Likewise,
the natural laws of human action are included in the science of economics,
and
the natural laws of man's proper action is included in the science of
ethics. It
is through the study of ethics, that is, proper and improper human action,
that
one can define what rights men have. Ethics includes the code of
criminality,
and it is for this reason that the trial by jury was provided for in the
Bill of
Rights. It is a check on the government's power, so that the power to
interpret
and apply the natural laws of ethics would rest in the people and not the
state.
This can clearly be seen in the language employed in the eighteenth century:
law
was to be discovered, not devised. On the importance of trial by jury,
nineteenth century legal scholar Lysander Spooner noted, "The question then,
between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is
simply
a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what the
powers
of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be
vested in one or the other of the parties themselves- the government, or the
people." Spooner argued that juries must necessarily judge upon the justice
of
the law as well as the specifics of the case, and he thus supported jury
nullification for such clearly unethical laws as the Fugitive Slave Act.

The modernly accepted notion of trial by jury, of the people solely judging
according to the state's laws, is based on the idea that law is dependent on
government. If law is dependent on government though, so too are the
people's
rights, since ethics necessarily includes both criminal law and rights. Of
course, the government proclaiming itself to have a monopoly on proper
ethical
laws does not make it actually have it, but if it uses the threat of
violence to
back its claim, few people are going to argue. Similarly, the government
could
proclaim that gravity no longer exists; it wouldn't be true, but it could
use
its power to stop scientists from conducting physical experiments to prove
them
wrong.

Once it becomes commonly accepted among the people that ethics are not
discovered but rather legislated, no liberties can be held secure. The
questions
people ask, for example, are not whether taxation is a legitimate means for
funding services and projects, but rather what level taxation should be.
People
ask what interest rate the central bank should lend money at, not whether a
central bank should exist at all.

This regrettable shift in philosophy, from one where the rights of the
people
are provided in man's inherent nature to one where man's rights are subject
to
the whim of the majority, has occurred because of many reasons. One is
fundamental to the Constitution and government itself. This is that no
government can completely be based upon voluntary cooperation, because the
Constitution is not a true contract. It was ratified by a vote, thus
contradicting its own statement of being based upon a voluntary union, since
there were many people who did not wish to live under it. With this
beginning,
it was only a matter of time before the logic of its ratification was
applied to
other areas. If only votes were necessary for its ratification, then only
votes
were necessary to decide whether the government should build railroads in
the
West or war with Mexico . The bottom line is that, no matter what the best
intent of the Founding Fathers was, we cannot rely upon the Constitution or
the
present federal government to secure our liberties. In a world where the
prevailing thought is that liberties are government privileges, true freedom
must be secured some other way.

Jacob Halbrooks has a B.S. in electrical engineering from Tufts University
and
is currently a graduate student at Dartmouth College. He has two life goals:
to
purchase at least one firearm per year, and to incite the Big Change. His
personal website is Jacob's Libertarian Press
http://www.geocities.com/libertarian_press/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fundamentals of Liberty (fwd)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:04:38 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Ed Fischang" <efischan@crcwnet.com> kindly posted

Fundamentals of Liberty: Law and Liberty in America

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Halbrooks/halbrooks13.html

by Jacob Halbrooks

Including:

"If law is dependent on government though, so too are the people's
rights, since ethics necessarily includes both criminal law and rights.
Of
course, the government proclaiming itself to have a monopoly on proper
ethical
laws does not make it actually have it, but if it uses the threat of
violence to
back its claim, few people are going to argue. Similarly, the government
could
proclaim that gravity no longer exists; it wouldn't be true, but it
could use
its power to stop scientists from conducting physical experiments to
prove them
wrong."

Heh. I'd like to know what experiments could be done to try to disprove
the "natural laws of ethics".

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: COURT URGED TO REJECT FORFEITURE LAW
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:21:05 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>

***** PLEASE FOWARD*****

COURT URGED TO REJECT FORFEITURE LAW
--------------------
VOTERS APPROVED MEASURE 3 TO STOP POLICE
FROM SEIZING PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER
WAS CONVICTED

By Charles E. Beggs-- The Associated Press

SALEM, Oregon--- Law enforcement authorities urged the state Court of
Appeals on Monday to overturn a voter-passed law that bars police from
seizing and selling property tied to illegal activity unless there is a
conviction.

The court heard arguments on measure 3, approved 2-1 in November 2000,
which has sharply reduced forfeitures of cash and goods that had raised
substantial money for police agencies.

The constitutional change put new restrictions on civil forfeitures, a
process used to acquire assets linked to suspected drug dealing even if
no one ended up being convicted.

Opponents want the law overturned on technical grounds. They say it
made multiple revisions that, under the state constitution's rules,
should have been voted on as separate amendments.

Marion County Circuit Judge Pamela Abernethy disagreed, upholding the
law in 2001 on grounds that it's provisions were closely related.

Forfeitures reported by law enforcement agencies dropped by 75 percent
in 2001, after the law took effect, the state Criminal Justice
Commission says.

Lincoln County and an interagency narcotics team in the county are
appealing the ruling.

Robert Bovet, an attorney for county argued that the law's provisions
are not closely related. For example, he told the appeals court,
there's little connection between requiring a conviction for forfeiture
and a restriction on using the proceeds.

Police and prosecutors say the law hinders a valuable anticrime tool
because forfeited property, including cars, houses and cash, has been
used to raise funds for new drug investigations.

Measure 3 also required that 40 percent of the forfeited money must go
to drug treatment programs.

Assistant Attorney General Mary Hazel Williams urged the appeals judges
to uphold the law. The court shouldn't strike down a constitutional
change "unless it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt" that the change is
invalid, she said.

"You could argue that the voters wanted the funds to go to the root of
the problem," Williams said of the money going to drug treatment.

As the public's lawyer, the attorney general must defend laws passed by
the voters.

The Oregon Supreme Court has struck down several voter- approved
constitutional amendments in recent years, citing the ban on rolling
unrelated changes into one measure, instead of separate ballot
propositions. Measures to limit legislative terms and to require
compensation of landowners whose property values are reduced by
government regulation are among those overturned on those grounds.

--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fundamentals of Liberty
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:28:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ed!

Ed Fischang posted...

Fundamentals of Liberty: Law and Liberty in America
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Halbrooks/halbrooks13.html
by Jacob Halbrooks

Excellent article Ed! Very historically accurate in terms of the
philosophical nature of the revolution and rational behind it!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - February 10, 2003 Issue
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:52:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Special Media Issue!

The following articles from the February 10, 2003 issue of The New
American are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The February 10, 2003 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/02-10-2003/
----------------------------------------

>From the Editor
Americans have more than one TV channel and more than one newspaper.
Yet
they all seem to parrot the same Establishment line.

Bread and Circuses
Mass entertainment focusing on emotional and sensory stimulation has
put
Americans in danger of suffering the fate of the Romans, who
entertained
themselves into oblivion.

The Power of Truth
The Insiders' Achilles' heel is that they must contain the truth in
order
to protect their schemes.

----------------------------------------

NEW VIDEO - Behind the Big News
A perfect supplement to this special media issue of The New American!
This
powerful and fast-paced video examines who controls the media, the
subversive agenda it promotes, and an effective strategy to overcome
this
assault. Available in VHS and DVD formats. (2003, 59 min.)

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:56:11 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: January 29, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

State of the Union speech laid out agenda
of 'global welfare and global warfare,' Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush laid out an agenda in his State of
the
Union speech that will make most Americans worse off than before,
Libertarians say, by expanding government spending and increasing the
likelihood of war with Iraq.

"Americans who were hoping for peace and prosperity instead got a plan
for global welfare and global warfare," said Geoffrey Neale,
Libertarian Party national chair. "Confiscating more money from
struggling American workers is the worst prescription for a sputtering
economy, and waging perpetual war will never achieve perpetual peace."

During his hour-long State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Bush
unveiled plans for approximately a half-trillion dollars in new or
expanded social programs; said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had missed
his "final chance" to avoid a U.S.-led attack by continuing to thwart
U.N. weapons inspectors; and cited threats posed by Iran and North
Korea.

But Libertarians say more government spending and more war is the
exact
opposite of what America needs.

"The mind-boggling array of government programs laid out by President
Bush has to be paid for by someone, and that someone is the ordinary
Americans who can least afford it," Neale said.

The presidential wish list included $400 billion for prescription drug
coverage for seniors; $600 million to remedy drug addiction; $6
billion
for vaccines against bioterror attacks; $1.2 billion to fund
government
research into hydrogen-powered cars; $450 million to mentor children;
and millions to hire more "citizen volunteers" for the USA Freedom
Corps and to continue Bush's "faith-based initiative" to funnel tax
money to churches and charities.

"But Bush's impulse to spend tax money promiscuously didn't stop
there," Neale noted. "He even made Clintonesque appeals for more money
for homeless shelters; to protect abused women; to 'provide
companionship' for the elderly; and even to prevent forest fires.
Apparently there's no aspect of American life that this self-described
conservative doesn't want to federalize.

"Unfortunately, Bush doesn't want to limit the spending of American
money to, well, America," said Neale, noting that Bush proposed
spending $10 billion for anti-AIDS programs in Africa; expanding
international food programs; and even using U.S. tax money to educate
children in Afghanistan.

"It's clear that under the Bush administration, welfare has gone
global," Neale said. "And this 'compassionate conservative' shows no
mercy at all for his fellow Americans who have to pay the bill."

Regarding Iraq, Neale said that Bush failed to present the one
legitimate reason that would justify going to war: self-defense.

"Bush pointed out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who
represses his own people, and that the Iraqi leader possesses or is
trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction – both of which seem to
be true," Neale said. "But the fact remains that Iraq has not
attacked the United States, nor has Bush presented the American people
with any specific, credible evidence that Hussein is linked to the
September 11 terrorist attacks. So launching a war against Iraq is
unnecessary for self-defense, and therefore totally unjustifiable."

While acknowledging that Bush claimed that the United States has
"secret communications" that show a link between Iraq and al Qaeda,
Neale noted that foreign policy experts say such an alliance is
extremely unlikely.

Neale said: "As John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out in
the January/February issue of Foreign Policy magazine: 'Osama bin
Laden
is a radical (Muslim) fundamentalist, and he detests secular leaders
like Saddam. . . Relations between Saddam and al Qaeda have always
been quite poor.' The scholars conclude there is 'no credible evidence
that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks' on September
11.

"If Bush has evidence to the contrary, he has a solemn obligation to
show it to Congress and to the American people before taking even one
more step toward war."

But what about Bush's prediction that Saddam himself would initiate a
chemical or biological attack against the United States?

"That's extremely unlikely as well," Neale said. "What Saddam values
above all else is his own survival, and he knows that attacking the
United States would lead to a devastating counterattack and the loss
of
his own life," Neale said. "Moreover, Saddam had the opportunity to
douse U.S. troops with such weapons during the Gulf War, and declined.
So we can assume that he was deterred by the same thing that would
deter him in the future: the belief that he would be obliterated by
the
U.S. response."

The best way to protect Americans from war with Iraq or with any other
nation is to bring U.S. troops home and use them for defensive
purposes
only, Libertarians say.

"The real lesson from Bush's speech is that big government causes more
problems than it solves, both overseas and at home," Neale said.
"America can become more prosperous and more secure only if we declare
an end to global warfare and global welfare."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:36:16 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Press release says

> "Bush pointed out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who
> represses his own people, and that the Iraqi leader possesses or is
> trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction - both of which seem
> to be true," Neale said. "But the fact remains that Iraq has not
> attacked the United States, nor has Bush presented the American
> people with any specific, credible evidence that Hussein is linked
> to the
> September 11 terrorist attacks. So launching a war against Iraq
> is unnecessary for self-defense, and therefore totally
> unjustifiable."

So, is the Libertarian Party taking an anti-United-Nations
stance?

If Saddam is not in compliance, warm words would not
win him over.

Regards
Tim

Patterns of the Soul
Gideon: So I'm giving you a chance

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:03:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to everyone...

LP Press release stated:
> > So launching a war against Iraq
> > is unnecessary for self-defense, and therefore totally
> > unjustifiable."

You replied:
> So, is the Libertarian Party taking an anti-United-Nations
> stance?

I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however the Party's pledge
for membership includes affirming: "I do not believe in or advocate
the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social
goals." All members who join the national party must sign that pledge
which is conditional for membership.

Therefore, I assume it doesn't matter whether or not the United
Nations itself initiates force, or whether it is only the US and a few
allies who initiate force, which in either case, is contrary to the
Libertarian Party's position on aggression.

On the other hand, for anyone believing that the United Nations is a
legitimate world government, then perhaps the UN could fall back on
the 1991 Gulf War as an excuse, providing that war did not end and was
still continuing in some form. The UN has not authorized the use of
force in any case.

It is difficult even with the above stretch, that the US government,
even acting alone alongside Britain and other "allies", could justify
the use of force UNLESS the UN declares it and ratifies it. The only
way around this, as the LP article points out, is if the US, Britain,
or allies can prove that any terrorist attacks that have been made,
originated from or where supported by Iraq. I don't believe that has
been done either.

> If Saddam is not in compliance, warm words would not
> win him over.

Again, only the UN could even possibly qualify, acting as the world
government, with alleged jurisdiction over individual states.

Libertarians, likely including the Libertarian Party of the US, would
be most likely to demand evidence that either Iraq has participated in
ongoing or specific terrorist attacks, or that credible evidence
exists that such an attack is imminently planned for execution.

It's also interesting, for those who really believe that the UN is a
legitimate government, and all member states are under its
jurisdiction, any rogue attack by one or two member states (Britain
and the US) against another state (Iraq) would ALSO be a violation of
the UN Charter. If the United Nations is consistent, such an attack
would be condemned, and even sanctions applied against the US and
Britain for launching such an attack.

Also, in all fairness and consistency, the International Court of
Justice should review the case, including indictments against those
who initiated the aggression (in this case George W. Bush, Colin
Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blaire, Jack Straw and a host of
others complicit in initiating such aggression.

Of course we both know, the later would likely never see the light of
day.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:45:58 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however the Party's
> pledge for membership includes affirming: "I do not believe in or
> advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
> political or social
> goals." All members who join the national party must sign that
> pledge which is conditional for membership.

In which case, the Libertarian Party should be consistent
and disband the police who initiate force. It should also
say that it wants to withdraw from the United Nations
because the UN charter permits force to make people
comply with the resolutions passed.

Regards
Tim

The Fall of Night
Ivanova: Because sometimes peace is another word
for surrender

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:26:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
> Frank
>
> > I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however
> the Party's
> > pledge for membership includes affirming: "I do
> not believe in or
> > advocate the initiation of force as a means of
> achieving
> > political or social
> > goals." All members who join the national party
> must sign that
> > pledge which is conditional for membership.
>
> In which case, the Libertarian Party should be
> consistent
> and disband the police who initiate force. It should
> also
> say that it wants to withdraw from the United
> Nations
> because the UN charter permits force to make people
> comply with the resolutions passed.

The police (when acting appropriately) do not initiate
force; they defend against initiations of force.

As for withdrawing from the UN, that is a "no duh."

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:55:31 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I Previously wrote:
> > I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however the Party's
> > pledge for membership includes affirming: "I do not believe in or
> > advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
> > political or social
> > goals." All members who join the national party must sign that
> > pledge which is conditional for membership.

To which, you replied:
> In which case, the Libertarian Party should be consistent
> and disband the police who initiate force. It should also
> say that it wants to withdraw from the United Nations
> because the UN charter permits force to make people
> comply with the resolutions passed.

Libertarians do not necessarily renounce all force. Pacifists libertarians
might, but the majority believe the use of force for the purpose of
self-defence is a legitimate and rightful use of force. You do have the
right to defend yourself against aggressors by such as rapists, burglars, or
those who commit fraud or theft against you.

The legitimacy of a police force, rightfully constituted and applied, is to
aid individuals in defending themselves. Therefore, in such a way, the
police would not be initiating force, but rather responding to aggression,
or aggressive force committed against individuals as victims of aggression.
True, in our society, the police *DO* initiate force against others, even
when such "crimes" have no victims, which is what libertarians rightfully
oppose.

The way to move in the direction of limiting the police to their rightful
role, is to dismantle the laws which define crime, including those
victimless crimes such as individuals consenting to engage in various
activities on their own free will. In the absence of such laws, the police
would have no authority to initiate force in such instances.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "America's drug war is so stupid...............
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:44:32 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************
http://www.cpop.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

Tired of the same old drug reform discussion lists getting you down?

Are you the kind that likes a list where most anything goes?

Do you dislike labels?

Are you looking for a list where the common bond is the abolition
of the War on Drugs?

Then we may have a list for you.

Maybe not?

Are you prepared to put aside your differences on other issues?

If so be prepared to meet a list of Yippies throwing pies at
capitalists;
a list with Christian Patriots pointing out the unConstitutionality of
the Drug War; a Wizard who believes in a different sort of healing;
our friends the dear Revs of the pot church in Canada; our man
from the Alabama Gadmans Militia; our Intelligence officer Mr.
Carl Worden of SOM. You may meet our field commander
and counter-terrorism expert from the Greenpanthers. Of course
we have D Paul of CRRH.org. Not to mention all the folks I
missed from the left to the right. Join us if you can tolerate all
speech, including that which you may despise.

This is not your parents drug reform discussion list [DRCTalk] folks :-)

PLEASE FORWARD

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition

Subscribe: cp3-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

For Subscription Info and to modify your settings, web postings,etc

Go to the CP site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

CPOP web site: http://www.cpop.org

http://www.greenpanthers.org
--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Double-taxation of Social Security.
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:44:11 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

In case you're ready for a break from talking (or thinking) about the
Columbia tragedy.

Practically every Democrat who is anybody and almost every mainstream
publication has repeated the claim that Social Security is double-taxed
because the dollars that go into Social Security are included in the total
on which the individual pays income taxes.

The Truth: Social Security is taxed the same way as a Roth IRA. The money
you put into either one is taxed (before you put it in, so to speak). But,
you don't pay taxes when it comes out. (And that includes it's
"growth".) The traditional IRA, the Keogh, the SIMPLE IRA, the 401k, etc.
generally operate the other way--you put in tax-free and get taxed when it
comes out. The exception is in the case of Social Security benefits which
are taxed if you are still earning more than a certain amount of
income. If I recall correctly, it was the Democrat-controlled Congress
which passed the law (which Clinton signed) that made Social Security
taxable under those conditions. I don't hear any of them proposing to
repeal that "middle class tax cut" which turned into a retroactive tax
increase.

However, there is still another qualification. The "employer contribution"
of the Social Security "tax" is not taxed because the "employer
contribution" is an employee expense to the employer. The employer pays
taxes on "profits" which is another way of saying "expenses" subtracted
from "revenues". (I believe that employer matches to 401k and similar
plans are also company expenses which are not taxed.) So, in the ordinary
case, social security is only "half-taxed" and in the case of the SS
recipient who still earns enough income to be affected, it is up to
"one-and-a-half" taxed. (Half-taxed going in and up to fully taxed coming
out.) Again, I don't hear any Democrat proposing to repeal this unfair
"one-and-a-half" tax that they pushed through.

Now, of course, if the Social Security Tax really is a tax and that little
letter I get from the Social Security Administration listing all my (and my
employers') contributions to "my account" is bogus, then Democrats are
really admitting that Social Security isn't the "retirement program"
they've been claiming for all this time.

So which is it? A tax or a retirement program? If it's a retirement
program, it's taxed fairly (with the exception noted above). If it's a tax
to pay for benefits that I'll never see, then forget the "double taxation",
I want out altogether and thank you Democrats for finally admitting the
truth.

Lowell C. Savage
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
It's the freedom, stupid!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Quality Painting
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 05:22:31 -0600
From: georgetown97@hotmail.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

[Image]

All our mailings are sent complying to the proposed H.R. 3113 Unsolicited
Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000. Please see the bottom of this
message for further information and removal instructions.

Professional painting of your home, apartment building or office adds to
your investment in several important ways.

First, The money spent on professional painting can make a dramatic
difference in the resale or renting potential of your property.

Secondly, you are assured that your structure is thoroughly protected from
the elements by proper preparation of old and new surfaces, and correct
application of undercoating and finishes.

Third, Professional painters have the skills and knowledge to assure that
your job is done right. Their reputation is built from the fine quality of
their work.

5 Great reasons to hire a professional:

1. Jobs finished on schedule
2. Protects your investment
3. Increases value of property
4. Quality work
5. Guaranteed satisfaction

Click on the below link for more information:

click here

Thank you for your time:
Georgetown Contractors, Inc.
P.O. box 629
brandy wine, md, 20613 USA
301-455-8199

To be removed from our mailing list click the link below:

remove me

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ex-Police Officer Gets 6 1/2 Years
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:40:56 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
"12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com"
<12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, unclesamsucks@yahoogroups.com,
APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>, Lee Berger <LawBerger@aol.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>

Ex-Police Officer Gets 6 1/2 Years

He admitted to taking drugs and money from dealers while on duty!!!!!

The Associated Press

SEATTLE, Wash.----- A former police officer who admitted shaking down
drug dealers for dope and cash while on duty has been sentenced to 6 1/2
years in federal prison.

"From the bottom of my heart, my apologies go to my family, the citizens
and the Seattle Police Department," Steve Slaughter said in U.S.
District Court on Friday, reading from a statement as his wife and other
supporters looked on.

Slaughter, 27, pleaded guilty in November to charges of possession of
heroin with intent to distribute, distribution of heroin, extortion and
possession of a firearm.

He said he realized he misused his position of power and disgraced his
uniform. After his arrest, the department took the unusual step of
destroying the badge he had been assigned.

"My actions are inexcusable," Slaughter told U.S. District Judge Thomas
Zilly.

Slaughter had faced a possible life term and fines of as much as
$250,000.

In seeking a lighter sentence, defense attorney Brian Tsuchida said
Slaughter's involvement with drug dealers and users was "baffling,"
Slaughter gained nothing from the relationships, didn't didn't earn
large amounts of cash and didn't try to get sexual favors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Diskin sought an 18-month sentence for
Slaughter, plus five years because he was carrying his service revolver
at the time of the offenses.

Zilly said a sentence at the low end of the scale was appropriate. He
said he will recommend drug treatment for Slaughter.

--
"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************
http://www.cpop.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

Tired of the same old drug reform discussion lists getting you down?

Are you the kind that likes a list where most anything goes?

Do you dislike labels?

Are you looking for a list where the common bond is the abolition
of the War on Drugs?

Then we may have a list for you.

Maybe not?

Are you prepared to put aside your differences on other issues?

If so be prepared to meet a list of Yippies throwing pies at
capitalists;
a list with Christian Patriots pointing out the unConstitutionality of
the Drug War; a Wizard who believes in a different sort of healing;
our friends the dear Revs of the pot church in Canada; our man
from the Alabama Gadmans Militia; our Intelligence officer Mr.
Carl Worden of SOM. You may meet our field commander
and counter-terrorism expert from the Greenpanthers. Of course
we have D Paul of CRRH.org. Not to mention all the folks I
missed from the left to the right. Join us if you can tolerate all
speech, including that which you may despise.

This is not your parents drug reform discussion list [DRCTalk] folks :-)

PLEASE FORWARD

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition

Subscribe: cp3-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

For Subscription Info and to modify your settings, web postings,etc

Go to the CP site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

CPOP web site: http://www.cpop.org

http://www.greenpanthers.org
--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: [CPOP] home despot]
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:28:49 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CPOP] home despot
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:15:12 -0500
From: ARON KAY <pieman@pieman.org>
Reply-To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>

you'll love this onehttp://www.homedespot.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention
to just how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs."
-- Jim Hightower

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition-Join us!-Link Below
Http://www.cpop.org

Greenpanthers http://www.greenpanthers.org
The only no compromise pot organization ( Direct Action!)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: CCLNews> [Fwd: [CPOP] home despot]
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 05:49:25 -0800
From: "Jack Lancaster" <lancaster@ccountry.com>
To: "News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw" <News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
"libnw" <libnw@immosys.com>, "Paul Freedom" <nepal@teleport.com>
CC: "\"Babel Magazine\"" <babelmagazine@adelphia.net>

The elitist control the drug trade and have since the China drug trade
England started. The drug war is to knock out conpetetion to the
international cartels control of drugs....Jacl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Freedom" <nepal@teleport.com>
To: "libnw" <libnw@immosys.com>; "News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw"
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:28 PM
Subject: CCLNews> [Fwd: [CPOP] home despot]

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [CPOP] home despot
> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:15:12 -0500
> From: ARON KAY <pieman@pieman.org>
> Reply-To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
>
> you'll love this onehttp://www.homedespot.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition
>
> "America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention
> to just how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs."
> -- Jim Hightower
>
> Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition-Join us!-Link Below
> Http://www.cpop.org
>
> Greenpanthers http://www.greenpanthers.org
> The only no compromise pot organization ( Direct Action!)
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: energy tech displacement and global warming (was foreign policy)
Date: 05 Feb 2003 10:37:30 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 07:50, Frank Reichert wrote:
All I'm going to say further on the cost of solar, is that I looked at
it for my house this summer, and the cheapest I could find was nearly
30K to replace my grid usage. It'd take about 30 years to recover the
cost. Too much for Joe Average, IMO. Supplementing w/solar is not much
different, the ROI is still too long.
...

> RE: Airline restructuring, you wrote:
> > IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
> > carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
> > is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
> > you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
> > ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
> > planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
> > mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
> > maintenance cost savings).
>
> I own stock in Delta, Continental, Northwest, United and American. All
> of these airlines are addressing the issue of competing with the
> smaller discount (economy) airlines EXCEPT American which is doing
> next to nothing in that regard. American is holding out in dealing
> with the labour unions, believing that United and US Airways will go
> titts up and be broken up in the bankruptcy courts. This of course,
> doesn't address the fundamental issue of labour costs exceeding 50%
> more than the economy airlines have to pay. In other words, while
> United and others have reached concessions for labour reductions,
> American by and large is only operating on the basis of $2 billion in
> available cash which is being depleted rapidly in operational
> expenses. Not a rosy picture.

Agreed.

>
> Believe it or not, United seems to be more forward looking than most
> of the rest. If they can survive bankruptcy, they are looking at
> purchasing a fleet of much smaller capacity and fuel efficient
> aircraft in a new "company" under the parent company to compete head
> to head with the economy carriers. If such restructuring is permitted
> to go forward, a huge percentage of United's schedule will be diverted
> to the newer, more efficient company. Both Continental and Delta are
> also slowly working into this restructuring process.

Yup, being "forced" into it by the invisible hand of competition. :)
Europe has been going through this for years.

>
> > Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
> > angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
> > than jumbos.
>
> I agree completely. Which is why American Airlines, which got hit
> pretty hard in 9/11, and is itself looking at probably filing Chapter
> 11 status in the next 12 months, ought to now start looking into
> spinning off a subsidiary "low cost" economy carrier of its own. This
> is the world's largest airline, and they still seem to be counting on
> the current status quo to somehow prevail. Again, the ONLY thing
> right now, keeping them out of filing Chapter 11, is the $2 billion is
> liquid cash (all liabilities) that they currently have on hand.

Yes. However, PRIOR to 9/11 several of the major airliner companies were
facing bankruptcy. Due to government bailouts after 9/11 (indeed because
of it) most of them escaped it. That doesn't change their long term
viability though.

>
> > One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.
>
> You got that right. Several of the airlines are trying to work out
> routing whereby not to waste their resources competing on non
> profitable routes. So far, the SEC and other Federal agencies are
> crying foul! If left alone, in most cases anyway, the airlines could
> most likely work out such compromises amongst themselves, outside of
> any government intervention at all.

Yes, the hub and spoke model's time is over.

...

> In automobile fuel restructuring, you wrote:
> > Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
> > stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
> > rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
> > remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
> > make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
> > availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
> > already here in Boise. :)
>
> I believe it is possible, that is, for the standard to be made on the
> basis for a free market choice by consumers. I only had the problem
> with YOU mandating that the government enter this picture by defining
> standards for "government" vehicles. But I also have a problem with

I see it as a responsibility the government has. It is a chain on
government: use the good stuff. As long as the government uses vehicles,
there will be a mandate on what is used.

> the petroleum industry monopolizing such standards, as such. They are
> just as big a liability to free markets (particularly when they are
> working in tandem with government regulation) as the government is
> itself.
>
> Let me just regress for a moment here. If BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
> and other corporate energy producers can monopolize the solar power
> market, as they are now trying to do, then they still make a free
> market solution to electrical energy largely dependent upon their own
> goals -- which will always be "petroleum"! They will artificially
> keep such alternative energy prices VERY HIGH to protect their main
> strategy of selling petroleum or fossil fuel products!

Yes. However, as I've mentioned before, ethanol is a disruptive
technology, and as such a genie they can not contain. Ethanol production
is doubling mostly because *literally* a group of farmers form a
co-operative to produce ethanol. Ethanol is a decentralist technology.

>
> > The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
> > been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
> > trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
> > monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
> > when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
> > than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
> > terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)
>
> You'll have to explain this more to me. I've been gone far too long as
> it is, and I don't honestly know what is being shown on the show room
> floors these days from Ford or GM. I own Ford, but not GM. I've
> always been a Ford man.

I'll try to keep it simple. :)
E85 = 15% gasoline 85% ethanol.

The air-fuel mixture requirement is different for E85 (most pumps here
in Boise output E10 year round), so a different chip is required, It
isn't a revolutionary technology so it doesn't make great news. A FFV
vehicle based on gas/ethanol uses a chip that handles both, and does so
w/o user intervention. You can run either E0, E10, or E85, or any
mixture thereof.

Last I saw here in Boise at least, E85 was a few cents cheaper than
E10/E0 (there is no price difference between E0--straight gas-- and
E10).

As far as the SUV being "better" when it runs on E85 compared to a more
"fuel efficient" care getting twice as much MPG...

Let us say we have an E85 powered SUV that gets 15 MPG, and compare it
to a sedan getting 30MPG running E10.

Let us figure 450 miles.
SUV: 30 gallons fuel
CAR: 15 gallons fuel

How much of that is petro-based?
SUV: 4.5 gallons
CAR: 13.5
CAR on straight gas: 15.

Then, there is the pollution factor.

The look on the face will be priceless. I've seen the look on one or two
people's faces just showing them the math. Heck, I could do a
"MasterCard commercial" over it! :)

> > My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
> > basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
> > be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
> > the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
> > to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
> > midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
> > success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".
>
> I see your point, as such. But I don't understand the technology at
> all. Point conceded. What will be the trade off, if any, in the cost
> per vehicle?

The last I looked, the cost was under 1 grand, and was told it would be
eliminated probably this year. The cost will be the time to order as
opposed to money spent. For companies (i.e. government) that order fleet
cars, there will be no difference in cost of vehicle.

>
> > Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
> > produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
> > progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
> > large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
> > landfill uh .. filling.
>
> Sounds exciting. To get the corporate producers of vehicles to sign
> on, will take some doing however, no doubt. To reconfigure a

They already have, Frank, that's what I'm trying to get across here.

> production line along such rapid changes, would require some basis for
> a profit, or payoff in the end. I've followed Ford's exploratory
> vehicles to a point, but they have also lost ground in such places

Where you've run into trouble is that these are not "exploratory", it's
a done deal tech-wise.

> I only use Ford as an example here, because as I said, I've always
> been a "Ford man". I haven't seen any innovative strategies from GM
> and haven't seen any of them for four decades, since the time I was
> old enough to take notice. Ford has always been the automotive
> innovator in both design and technology.
>
> I can't believe I am using Liberty Northwest as a free advertisement
> for the Ford Motor Company! Sorry, everyone!

That's OK, equal time is equal time. :)

>
> However, look back a few decades. Who produced the first American
> Sports Car? The Ford Thunderbird (1955), or the GM reaction (1956),
> the Corvette?

If you truly think the Corvette was a reaction, you should give credit
for doing in under a year what Ford took a few of years to do. ;) Same
for the rest. The T-bird wasn't exactly a sports car. Isn't today
either.

> What has GM ever innovated in the last four decades? They were on the
> brink of bankruptcy during the 1980s, losing billions of dollars. Ford
> wasn't doing so bad, with introductions of the Sable, Grenada, and
> entering the SUV market well ahead of GM or Chrysler's wildest
> imaginations!

Actually, Ford was on the verge of bankruptcy itself, it was the Taurus
that rescued them. I don't know if they still do, but they used to
freely acknowledge that --indeed they bragged how the Taurus saved them.

>
> So, why am I a Ford man, you ask? I have no clue. I just believe they
> will get out of this current stinking mess before any other US
> automaker can come up with the technological and design answers.

Gm was the first, as I recall, to offer FFVs to the market through the
CNG/Propane factory options (you could run on either gas or CNG or
gas/propane the cost was 1500 and you ordered it). GM _currently_ has
more models that can run E85 than any other company.

:^)

>
> [Frank reverts to a more objective position...]
>
> > Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
> > reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)
> > Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
> > called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
> > and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
> > options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
> > and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
> > working to get caught up).
>
> Why am I not surprised.

Because they took a different tack to revive themselves.

>
> > We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
> > McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
> > cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
> > resource too. :)
>
> Yea, you right. I do have to come back and see some of this. I might
> not be all that happy either in what I see, discounting the smell from
> burgers from tailpipe emissions. Got to believe that Ford is likely on

Actually, they smell like french fries. :)

>
> > I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
> > fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
> > cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
> > as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
> > sold at half off, you can by twice as much.
>
> Perhaps. But not always the case. When economic concerns are in place,
> people want to drive between A-Z. What is the most economical way to
> arrive at such a destination? Many Americans are less concerned with
> such choices, and frankly, don't care. I've noticed that the latest
> models don't care either. Since GM's Geo Metro (about 54 mpg), such
> options have largely disappeared in recent years. The Metro is gone,
> so as the Chevrolet Sprint, which also enjoyed mpg figures in the 50
> mpg range.
>
> Admittedly, both Ford and Chrysler did not pursue the mpg issue as
> aggressively as GM once did. It does appear however that even GM has
> thrown in the towel on that as well. When you que in on mpg on a
> search engine to find the best mpg available in standard internal
> combustion engines, the best you can come up with days is the low
> 40's.

Yup. MPG is not a seller. That;s why the ecofreaks have taken the
mandate it route.

> I haven't been able to find one single automobile, marketed in the US,
> using standard internal combustion technology that gets very far ahead
> of 40 mpg. I do know, that in Japan, several models are still
> available manufactured by Suzukki, owned in large part by GM. However,
> the absence of such vehicles in America seems to suggest that there is
> no market for fuel economy per se. The Geo Metro is gone. The Chevy
> Sprint is gone, and with that, fuel economy as an issue has largely
> disappeared.

The other side of that is that to get that MPG, you needed a shoebox on
wheels. not too practical. Oh, and then there is the safety issue.
Trying to merge in front of a semi in an econobox. That tends to place
some things in perspective. Econoboxes just weren't practical for he
average family either. SUVs *are*.

>
> This says a lot, to me at least, as far as American's concerned over
> energy consumption is a basic issue at all.
>
> > I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
> > base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
> > highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.
>
> I do. Russia's reserves haven't even been quantified yet. We simply
> have little scientific information that would suggest that Russia
> isn't sitting on the highest petroleum reserves on the entire plant.

We have even less saying they are.

> Russia will be a key player in energy, and WILL surpass Saudi Arabia's
> capacity by the year 2005, or perhaps much sooner than even that.

Unless they have a greater reserve than Saudi Arabia, they will die out
fast.

>
> This is also true of the north slope of Alaska! Which was largely
> locked up by the former Bush Administration. This is also pure bull
> shit, and I can't believe any American would support this dependence
> upon imported oil! This includes, the same Bush Administration locking
> up exploration and production of petroleum on the west coast
> continental shelf! I have read and heard of the impact that the
> colossal resources on the North Slope in Alaska even exceeds that of
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> So, your figures don't match, Bill. If Russia has substantial
> petroleum reserves that exceed Saudi Arabia, and the Alaskan North
> Slope exceeds the capacity of Saudi Arabia, then why? I ask, is
> mid-east oil such a "burning concern" (no pun intended)?

Because nobody has proven Russia *has* the reserves you allege. Until
they prove they have more reserves, they will not be the big kid on the
block, regardless of temporal output. As of the latest numbers, they
have less than half the reserves of S.A.

Further, as Russia's economny does pick up, they will increase *their*
consumption. As of last fall, they consumed a little under a third of
their production.

>
> Anyway, even if the echo-frecks get their way, and global warming is
> really talking place, then Russia will be the chief beneficiary of
> that trend, since Siberia will also warm up, and create thereby a new
> tremendous resource for the planet in terms of such things as
> agriculture, and growth in forest products as such! I don't see any
> dooms day scenario hanging over the planet in such cases.

I'll see if I can find the link but the ecofreaks have a custom
disaster for global warming for everyone. If warming would do you good,
they say it will get colder in your area. I'm not making this up.

Ahh here it is:
http://www.john-daly.com/banner.htm

For Russia, which as you note would *welcome* some warming, somehow we
are going to see the melting of the polar ice caps yet the North
Atlantic will get COLDER.

Basically, pick the worst thing that could happen weather-wise to an
area, and the econuts say global warming will make it worse!
(of course, I'm not agreeing with them, just pointing it out)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fuel Cells.
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:56:04 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Fuel Cells Dammit!!

I have been working on HVAC concepts and off-grid existence for a while.
Philosophically I find it necessary to be able to live in the middle of
nowhere and still have most of the amenities of modern living.
(Some ideas I have had: Mining water from the air, using satelite internet
as one's main telephone connection, living in/on the sea and using tidal
power (no real estate costs, and possibly no laws to adhere to, the only
problem maybe hurricanes), underground living for the constant temperature,
and a number of others)
But really, to compete with the relatively low costs of obtaining power from
the grid, the only way to go is co-generation. In so many off-grid
electricity production setups I see people literally throw away more than
half the usable energy. Specifically the heat!
In more conventional generating setups, people run their electrical
generator and use the electricity only, and the generator makes all kinds of
heat that is just tossed to the wind.
Even in these setups, if people used that heat to warm their homes, the
off-grid home powering systems would approach the cost of normal on-grid and
heat distribution services.

However I read a lot of hoopla about fuel cells, and fundamentally it is THE
way to go as far as energy production is concerned - remove the intermediate
carnot cycle limitations and approach theoretical conversion efficiencies.
The big problem is that the latest systems being touted run only on very
pure hydrogen. This is impractical, as hydrogen is hard to store,
energetically and physically inconvenient to produce.
The answer to this problem, that is overlooked for public relations reasons,
is that in the right type of fuel cells carbon monoxide is superior to
hydrogen as a fuel cell gas. Carbon monoxide is incredibly easy to make
(most of it is made inadvertently), and can be converted efficiently from
natural gas using a nickel catalyst.
This, combined with a cogeneration system utilising the heat and water
concurrently generated, would easily compete economically with any utility
grid and fuel distribution system. One could totally power one's home for
less than grid prices, and remain independent.

This is the ultimate as far as I am concerned. I am working on a molten salt
electrical furnace that would do all these things, and could be powered
either from natural gas or from coke/carbon/coal.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...

> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power
at
> > > 12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that
much.
> > > Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to
mount
> > > on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
> > > restrictive.
>
> You replied:
> > The way to get the most out of solar is to convert as much as possible
> > to DC as opposed to AC. Too much is lost in the conversion form DC
> > (produced by solar) to AC (standard housing power). I've looked a lot at
> > the "off-grid" houses, and they've made substantial progress, though
> > still too expensive for Joe Sixpack (even Joe AverageDoctor/Lawyer).
>
> I don't think that they are. I'm not the "AverageDoctor/Lawyer", and
> it works for me. It is NOT practical in most cases to assume a
> majority of dependence upon 12VDC, although it that could happen, it
> would be nice. In reality, small things demand the use of conversion
> to 120VAC. These small things keep the inverter turned on to supply
> those necessities. The inverter itself takes power to convert such
> energy from DC to AC, so in all likelihood, the inverter will be
> working anyway, even when using DC energy.
>
> So, find an inverter that is less a costly drain upon DC, such as
> Trace inverters which in idle mode have a negligible drain, and even
> when supplying direct AC, the loss of power is also minimal. Some
> inverters are ridiculously expensive in terms of loss of power, but
> Trace and others have made substantial advances in eliminating much of
> that amperage drain. You can also manually adjust Trace Inverters to
> the minimum pull to spring them from idle mode to full power mode.
> Inverters no medium for this. They either supply AC or they choose not
> to, depending upon the setting you initiate. So, if a freezer or
> refrigerator kick in, the inverter shifts to deliver AC. If a 5-watt
> light bulb is turned on, it might not be of sufficient amperage to
> kick on the inverter. The key is to configure your home to 12VDC
> lighting, and only keep necessary appliances running the triggering
> process for the AC inverter to switch on.
>
> RE: Airline restructuring, you wrote:
> > IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
> > carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
> > is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
> > you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
> > ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
> > planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
> > mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
> > maintenance cost savings).
>
> I own stock in Delta, Continental, Northwest, United and American. All
> of these airlines are addressing the issue of competing with the
> smaller discount (economy) airlines EXCEPT American which is doing
> next to nothing in that regard. American is holding out in dealing
> with the labour unions, believing that United and US Airways will go
> titts up and be broken up in the bankruptcy courts. This of course,
> doesn't address the fundamental issue of labour costs exceeding 50%
> more than the economy airlines have to pay. In other words, while
> United and others have reached concessions for labour reductions,
> American by and large is only operating on the basis of $2 billion in
> available cash which is being depleted rapidly in operational
> expenses. Not a rosy picture.
>
> Believe it or not, United seems to be more forward looking than most
> of the rest. If they can survive bankruptcy, they are looking at
> purchasing a fleet of much smaller capacity and fuel efficient
> aircraft in a new "company" under the parent company to compete head
> to head with the economy carriers. If such restructuring is permitted
> to go forward, a huge percentage of United's schedule will be diverted
> to the newer, more efficient company. Both Continental and Delta are
> also slowly working into this restructuring process.
>
> > Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
> > angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
> > than jumbos.
>
> I agree completely. Which is why American Airlines, which got hit
> pretty hard in 9/11, and is itself looking at probably filing Chapter
> 11 status in the next 12 months, ought to now start looking into
> spinning off a subsidiary "low cost" economy carrier of its own. This
> is the world's largest airline, and they still seem to be counting on
> the current status quo to somehow prevail. Again, the ONLY thing
> right now, keeping them out of filing Chapter 11, is the $2 billion is
> liquid cash (all liabilities) that they currently have on hand.
>
> > One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.
>
> You got that right. Several of the airlines are trying to work out
> routing whereby not to waste their resources competing on non
> profitable routes. So far, the SEC and other Federal agencies are
> crying foul! If left alone, in most cases anyway, the airlines could
> most likely work out such compromises amongst themselves, outside of
> any government intervention at all.
>
> I previously wrote:
> > It is practical right now for the average size home to
> > > have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now
(in most
> > > areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of
modifications to
> > > such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking
devices.
>
> And, you replied:
> > Yes, it does. Nearly a wholesale change of the wiring and devices.
> > Doable, though.
>
> Well, in my home in Idaho, I have several two electrical boxes
> available in every room. One with brown panels that accept 12VDC, and
> white panels that are fitted to 120VAC. It's easy to do that with a
> new home, when such plans are already fitted into the blueprints. It
> is far more difficult to retrofit a used house that is designed around
> the use of 120VAC. That gets both messy, and expensive. The white
> panelled boxes are directly from the AC inverter, and the brown ones
> directly from the DC battery source.
>
> In automobile fuel restructuring, you wrote:
> > Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
> > stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
> > rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
> > remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
> > make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
> > availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
> > already here in Boise. :)
>
> I believe it is possible, that is, for the standard to be made on the
> basis for a free market choice by consumers. I only had the problem
> with YOU mandating that the government enter this picture by defining
> standards for "government" vehicles. But I also have a problem with
> the petroleum industry monopolizing such standards, as such. They are
> just as big a liability to free markets (particularly when they are
> working in tandem with government regulation) as the government is
> itself.
>
> Let me just regress for a moment here. If BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
> and other corporate energy producers can monopolize the solar power
> market, as they are now trying to do, then they still make a free
> market solution to electrical energy largely dependent upon their own
> goals -- which will always be "petroleum"! They will artificially
> keep such alternative energy prices VERY HIGH to protect their main
> strategy of selling petroleum or fossil fuel products!
>
> If you doubt what I am saying, check out the ownership over WHO has
> bought up the production of solar voltic companies just in the last
> five years! There are still some independent companies that are out
> there, but they are striking in terms of corporate mergers and
> buyouts, mainly because the technology is threatening their
> (petroleum) interests. It's interesting to watch this shit happen.
>
> Actually, solar electric technology isn't that new. On the bright
> side, emerging markets in China, Japan, and Taiwan may really throw a
> wrench into this mix, and actually make solar electric power very
> price competitive with existing electrical generation.
>
> > The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
> > been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
> > trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
> > monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
> > when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
> > than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
> > terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)
>
> You'll have to explain this more to me. I've been gone far too long as
> it is, and I don't honestly know what is being shown on the show room
> floors these days from Ford or GM. I own Ford, but not GM. I've
> always been a Ford man.
>
> > My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
> > basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
> > be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
> > the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
> > to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
> > midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
> > success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".
>
> I see your point, as such. But I don't understand the technology at
> all. Point conceded. What will be the trade off, if any, in the cost
> per vehicle?
>
> > Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
> > produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
> > progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
> > large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
> > landfill uh .. filling.
>
> Sounds exciting. To get the corporate producers of vehicles to sign
> on, will take some doing however, no doubt. To reconfigure a
> production line along such rapid changes, would require some basis for
> a profit, or payoff in the end. I've followed Ford's exploratory
> vehicles to a point, but they have also lost ground in such places as
> Norway, which refused to give Ford tax-exempt status for the
> production of such vehicles. Of course, Norway is a oil producing
> nation. This has GOT to be a fundamental question, e.g.: Are the
> interests of corporate petroleum producers of such a nature that
> prohibit the economical benefits to consumers from choosing
> alternative and more cost effective trade-offs to current technology?
> Can and do such interests affect the nature of what governments
> ultimately decide to do?
>
> I only use Ford as an example here, because as I said, I've always
> been a "Ford man". I haven't seen any innovative strategies from GM
> and haven't seen any of them for four decades, since the time I was
> old enough to take notice. Ford has always been the automotive
> innovator in both design and technology.
>
> I can't believe I am using Liberty Northwest as a free advertisement
> for the Ford Motor Company! Sorry, everyone!
>
> However, look back a few decades. Who produced the first American
> Sports Car? The Ford Thunderbird (1955), or the GM reaction (1956),
> the Corvette?
>
> I love this! This really gets my mind off politics for a while!
>
> Who, produced the FIRST midsized automobile? The Ford Fairlane
> (1962), or the GM's reactionary version with the Chevelle (1963).
>
> And, what about economy models? Ford's Falcon (1960) and GM's
> reactionary response with the "Corvere" (sp) or whatever it's spelling
> is.
>
> What about Ford's introduction of the Mustang (1965). The first
> innovative sports car "family version" vehicle opening a broad new
> market. GM's version, again a year later, the Camero, (1966).
>
> What has GM ever innovated in the last four decades? They were on the
> brink of bankruptcy during the 1980s, losing billions of dollars. Ford
> wasn't doing so bad, with introductions of the Sable, Grenada, and
> entering the SUV market well ahead of GM or Chrysler's wildest
> imaginations!
>
> So, why am I a Ford man, you ask? I have no clue. I just believe they
> will get out of this current stinking mess before any other US
> automaker can come up with the technological and design answers.
>
> [Frank reverts to a more objective position...]
>
> > Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
> > reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)
> > Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
> > called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
> > and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
> > options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
> > and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
> > working to get caught up).
>
> Why am I not surprised.
>
> > We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
> > McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
> > cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
> > resource too. :)
>
> Yea, you right. I do have to come back and see some of this. I might
> not be all that happy either in what I see, discounting the smell from
> burgers from tailpipe emissions. Got to believe that Ford is likely on
> top of this new technology however. I've got my money riding on it
> nevertheless.
>
> > I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
> > fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
> > cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
> > as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
> > sold at half off, you can by twice as much.
>
> Perhaps. But not always the case. When economic concerns are in place,
> people want to drive between A-Z. What is the most economical way to
> arrive at such a destination? Many Americans are less concerned with
> such choices, and frankly, don't care. I've noticed that the latest
> models don't care either. Since GM's Geo Metro (about 54 mpg), such
> options have largely disappeared in recent years. The Metro is gone,
> so as the Chevrolet Sprint, which also enjoyed mpg figures in the 50
> mpg range.
>
> Admittedly, both Ford and Chrysler did not pursue the mpg issue as
> aggressively as GM once did. It does appear however that even GM has
> thrown in the towel on that as well. When you que in on mpg on a
> search engine to find the best mpg available in standard internal
> combustion engines, the best you can come up with days is the low
> 40's.
>
> I haven't been able to find one single automobile, marketed in the US,
> using standard internal combustion technology that gets very far ahead
> of 40 mpg. I do know, that in Japan, several models are still
> available manufactured by Suzukki, owned in large part by GM. However,
> the absence of such vehicles in America seems to suggest that there is
> no market for fuel economy per se. The Geo Metro is gone. The Chevy
> Sprint is gone, and with that, fuel economy as an issue has largely
> disappeared.
>
> This says a lot, to me at least, as far as American's concerned over
> energy consumption is a basic issue at all.
>
> > I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
> > base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
> > highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.
>
> I do. Russia's reserves haven't even been quantified yet. We simply
> have little scientific information that would suggest that Russia
> isn't sitting on the highest petroleum reserves on the entire plant.
> Russia will be a key player in energy, and WILL surpass Saudi Arabia's
> capacity by the year 2005, or perhaps much sooner than even that.
>
> This is also true of the north slope of Alaska! Which was largely
> locked up by the former Bush Administration. This is also pure bull
> shit, and I can't believe any American would support this dependence
> upon imported oil! This includes, the same Bush Administration locking
> up exploration and production of petroleum on the west coast
> continental shelf! I have read and heard of the impact that the
> colossal resources on the North Slope in Alaska even exceeds that of
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> So, your figures don't match, Bill. If Russia has substantial
> petroleum reserves that exceed Saudi Arabia, and the Alaskan North
> Slope exceeds the capacity of Saudi Arabia, then why? I ask, is
> mid-east oil such a "burning concern" (no pun intended)?
>
> Anyway, even if the echo-frecks get their way, and global warming is
> really talking place, then Russia will be the chief beneficiary of
> that trend, since Siberia will also warm up, and create thereby a new
> tremendous resource for the planet in terms of such things as
> agriculture, and growth in forest products as such! I don't see any
> dooms day scenario hanging over the planet in such cases.
>
> > I don't see solar as a net win for many many years to come, likely
> > decades. Now, fuel cells, however, that is the next technology I see for
> > electric grid deployment. It can be done per-unit, be it house or
> > commercial building, or even apartments.
>
> Solar power is already here, and as I've already stated, is
> achievable. The cost of homes is currently around $80k. So, a $10,000
> investment in alternative solar power is already an option for each
> and every homebuilder, and home buyer.
>
> Problem is, that few, precious choices are made in the market place
> today. Mostly because of government building codes, and regulations.
>
> I'm sending this now. Getting late here. Please do get back with me on
> this.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: 06 Feb 2003 12:01:00 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 05:56, G Triest wrote:
> Fuel Cells Dammit!!
>
> I have been working on HVAC concepts and off-grid existence for a while.
> Philosophically I find it necessary to be able to live in the middle of
> nowhere and still have most of the amenities of modern living.
> (Some ideas I have had: Mining water from the air, using satelite internet
> as one's main telephone connection, living in/on the sea and using tidal
> power (no real estate costs, and possibly no laws to adhere to, the only
> problem maybe hurricanes), underground living for the constant
temperature,
> and a number of others)
> But really, to compete with the relatively low costs of obtaining power
from
> the grid, the only way to go is co-generation. In so many off-grid
> electricity production setups I see people literally throw away more than
> half the usable energy. Specifically the heat!
> In more conventional generating setups, people run their electrical
> generator and use the electricity only, and the generator makes all kinds
of
> heat that is just tossed to the wind.
> Even in these setups, if people used that heat to warm their homes, the
> off-grid home powering systems would approach the cost of normal on-grid
and
> heat distribution services.
>
> However I read a lot of hoopla about fuel cells, and fundamentally it is
THE
> way to go as far as energy production is concerned - remove the
intermediate
> carnot cycle limitations and approach theoretical conversion efficiencies.
> The big problem is that the latest systems being touted run only on very
> pure hydrogen. This is impractical, as hydrogen is hard to store,
> energetically and physically inconvenient to produce.

Yes, that's why hydrogen fuel cells are yesterday's news. ;) I haven't
seen anyone touting that for some time now. The automakers are primarily
working on gasoline or gasoline hybrid fuel cells, the Canadians and a
few American companies are working on natural gas home units, and the
renewable fuels people are working on ethanol based fuel cells.

> The answer to this problem, that is overlooked for public relations
reasons,
> is that in the right type of fuel cells carbon monoxide is superior to
> hydrogen as a fuel cell gas. Carbon monoxide is incredibly easy to make
> (most of it is made inadvertently), and can be converted efficiently from
> natural gas using a nickel catalyst.
> This, combined with a cogeneration system utilising the heat and water
> concurrently generated, would easily compete economically with any utility
> grid and fuel distribution system. One could totally power one's home for
> less than grid prices, and remain independent.
>
> This is the ultimate as far as I am concerned. I am working on a molten
salt
> electrical furnace that would do all these things, and could be powered
> either from natural gas or from coke/carbon/coal.

Gary, you would probably be interested in one of my other posts on this
then where I talked about fuel cells, and that Ethanol is in fact one of
the best sources for fuel for these things. They are quite simple,
purely chemical (no combustion, etc.), they output only water, and are
very efficient. Not to mention much smaller than the current plans of
gasses or gasolines. In fact, a vehicle can be fitted with such a setup
quite easily, with the fuels in the normal gas tank, and the cell "under
the hood". The most noted change would be the addition of a tank to
capture the resulting water output.

Ethanol can be pipelined (it does so well), and could provide a means of
fuel to a house in the city (a source for power generation as well as
possible use for furnaces for heat), or stored in tanks for housing away
form pipelines.

Further, one must always look at distribution methods. The mechanism
that utilizes the existing systems will be the most likely to succeed.

There are already fuel cell units for the home that are powered by
natural gas. However, NG is non-renewable. Coke/Carbon/Coal are not
renewable --with the exception of carbon though more energy goes into
making it than you get out of it.

Natural Gas powered fuel cells will likely be the first to catch on, but
only in the areas that have already invested in natural gas
infrastructure. I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will
be Ethanol, as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution
infrastructure, *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines
provides a migration path. Basically:

gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells

Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)

<snip leftovers>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:40:29 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Bill Anderson <libnw@immosys.com>

On 06-Feb-03, Bill Anderson wrote:

BA> ... I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will be
Ethanol,
BA> as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution infrastructure,
BA> *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines provides a
migration
BA> path. Basically:

BA> gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells

BA> Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)

Just a few questions:

How much ethanol would the US consume per day/month/year;

How much ethanol can American farmlands produce per day/month/year without
diverting crops from more profitable markets;

and, maybe most importantly,

How will this affect the price of bourbon?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: 06 Feb 2003 17:42:16 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 16:40, Ed Fischang wrote:
> On 06-Feb-03, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> BA> ... I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will be
Ethanol,
> BA> as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution
infrastructure,
> BA> *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines provides a
migration
> BA> path. Basically:
>
> BA> gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells
>
> BA> Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)
>
> Just a few questions:
>
> How much ethanol would the US consume per day/month/year;

That depends on the penetration.

>
> How much ethanol can American farmlands produce per day/month/year without
> diverting crops from more profitable markets;

I assume you mean by "more profitable" food? 100%.

It is a false notion that ethanol stock is the same as food stock. The
two stock crop areas are not the same. Any overlap is animal feed stock,
but that is actually a byproduct of the ethanol production process
anyway. Further, other process mechanisms don't use crop at all, but
organic garbage, etc..

As far as "more profitable" in other ways ethanol *is* the most
profitable use of such crops. It adds, on average, 30 cents per bushel
to the price of corn. As you can imagine, farmers have been a *big*
influence on moving to ethanol. The economic factors have led to many
ethanol plants being run by co-ops formed by geographically near
farmers. I'm in the early stages of talking to local farmers about this
possibility here in Idaho.

[of course, since I also run for state legislature, I acknowledge a
political advantage to gaining the support of the farmers, the true
environmentalists (not: NOT the ecofreaks!), the construction groups
(someone has to build these plants), and through economy boosting many
other classes voters. However, that's a decidedly good benefit, not my
motivator.]

> and, maybe most importantly,
>
> How will this affect the price of bourbon?

Directly, not much. ;) Though over the long run, it *could* reduce your
taxes, freeing up more money for bourbon. ;) or if you happen to be a
farmer or producer of materials used in the ethanol process you might
have more money available to buy bourbon. ;)

It isn't *quite* a panacea. ;^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:00:19 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I am skeptical about alcohol and gasoline based fuel cell systems. The
amount of energy lost in the conversion is very significant, kinda undoing
the reason for using a fuel cell in the first place. Yes of course it is
better to have a solid-state electrical power producer, but it bothers me to
think of 30 -50 % of the available energy being lost in the conversion.

I somewhat disagree about the disavailability of natural gas though. This is
a fuel with such an abundence on earth it is scary. Most of what we have now
comes from oil drilling, but think of all the methane hydrate deposits that
have been found at the bottom of the sea. There is more energy there than
just about anywhere else on earth. We will not run out for a long time.
Another source could be bacteria working on biological wastes and cellulose
(so there is your renewability!).
And how can you say that carbon is a nonrenewable resource? All wood turns
into carbon.

I like the idea of a carbon based fuel cell; put your wood in and get heat
and electricity out ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.

>
> Gary, you would probably be interested in one of my other posts on this
> then where I talked about fuel cells, and that Ethanol is in fact one of
> the best sources for fuel for these things. They are quite simple,
> purely chemical (no combustion, etc.), they output only water, and are
> very efficient. Not to mention much smaller than the current plans of
> gasses or gasolines. In fact, a vehicle can be fitted with such a setup
> quite easily, with the fuels in the normal gas tank, and the cell "under
> the hood". The most noted change would be the addition of a tank to
> capture the resulting water output.
>
> Ethanol can be pipelined (it does so well), and could provide a means of
> fuel to a house in the city (a source for power generation as well as
> possible use for furnaces for heat), or stored in tanks for housing away
> form pipelines.
>
> Further, one must always look at distribution methods. The mechanism
> that utilizes the existing systems will be the most likely to succeed.
>
> There are already fuel cell units for the home that are powered by
> natural gas. However, NG is non-renewable. Coke/Carbon/Coal are not
> renewable --with the exception of carbon though more energy goes into
> making it than you get out of it.
>
> Natural Gas powered fuel cells will likely be the first to catch on, but
> only in the areas that have already invested in natural gas
> infrastructure. I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will
> be Ethanol, as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution
> infrastructure, *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines
> provides a migration path. Basically:
>
> gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells
>
> Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)
>
>
> <snip leftovers>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BOYCOTT THE OREGONIAN-PLEASE FORWARD
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:58:36 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>,
"laworegon@yahoogroups.com" <laworegon@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
TSCW <12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com>,
pdml@yahoogroups.com
CC: Arianna Huffington <arianna@ariannaonline.com>,
kcosgrov@oregonlive.com, bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com,
davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com,
davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com,
susanneilson@news.oregonian.com, marykitch@news.oregonian.com,
dougbates@news.oregonian.com, rickattig@news.oregonian.com,
nanalexander@news.oregonian.com

BOYCOTT THE OREGONIAN-- PLEASE FORWARD

Paul wrote:
I just watched Fox News Watch. It was brought to my attention
that The Oregonian newspaper is dropping Arianna Huffington's
column because of her anti-SUV ads. The Oregonian doesn't
think it's right to have an activist position and write a column.

One person on Fox News Watch alluded to the idea that
The Oregonian is appeasing the auto dealers. Jim Pinkerton
thought is was a bad move by The Oregonian, but that they
have that right in a free market. I agree! We have the right
in a free market to now call for a boycott of The Portland
Oregonian, for being a rag of censored news not fit to print.

<snip>
• Arianna Leaves in a Huffington: Was the Portland Oregonian
justified in dropping Arianna Huffington's regular
column because
she "crossed the line" into activism with her
anti-SUV commercial?

<snip>

Drop their editors a line if you so desire:
Robert J Caldwell-Editorial Page Editor
bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [CPOP] educate THE OREGONIAN-PLEASE FORWARD
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 12:28:32 EST
From: Censorthis1@aol.com
To: cp3@yahoogroups.com, apfn-1@yahoogroups.com,
News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org, piml@yahoogroups.com,
laworegon@yahoogroups.com, libnw@immosys.com,
12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com, pdml@yahoogroups.com
CC: arianna@ariannaonline.com, kcosgrov@oregonlive.com,
bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com, davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com,
davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com, susanneilson@news.oregonian.com,
marykitch@news.oregonian.com, dougbates@news.oregonian.com,
rickattig@news.oregonian.com, nanalexander@news.oregonian.com

while millions of us are whacking at the branches of evil; only one is
striking at the root. -henry david thoreau

the issue of suv's is a non issue. period. the issue of burning fossil
fuels is the issue. it is killing this planet and its inhabitants. which
you are one of whether you like it or not.

and if fossil fuels were the only thing out there that would work to satisfy
our human selfish appetites; then i would not be railing you, on your
ignorance of what a very significant problem is, in our society.

arianna, i have told you the answer atleast 5 times now; and atleast 20
times if you were actually paying attention. now, i cant believe someone of
your intellect can consciously miss all of these attempts at educating you
for your own good and the good of the people. so, i have no other choice
than to assume you have sold your soul to the no soul gang.

there is no other excuse to point at from my knowing your intentions and
energies toward your vision of "the 2000 shadow campaigns" and what i see as
a 3 year waste of your time toward educating yourself on the real issues.
you have not. you have actually went backwards.

with freedom, comes responsibility. and you have chosen to run from your
responsibilities toward the pursuit of freedom. therefore, you are not
worthy to achieve true freedom, and you are being treated accordingly by
people who are just as ignorant and afraid to achieve what you are not
trying to achieve.

and the only reason i am attempting one more time to enlighten you; and thus
bring confidence to you, to do the right thing; is to educate those who will
read this, toward finding it in yourself to get over the fear of collective
societal oppression, the right way; and to inform these people that we are
either going to find nirvana soon; or we are going to all become "real time
slaves" as in the bloody days of the pharoahs "slaves." and if you think i
am fuking with you; you have another thing coming.

you people are all in a position to understand where the roots are to this
very old tree of evil that is about to shade the whole planet very soon.

i suggest you all start attempting to strike at the root. we all have
minds. we can all be heroes. it is just if you; are going to get off your
ass and do something positive toward the betterment of this planet and its
inhabitants.

wake up people. you are helping them by not learning this. and that will
be judged as treason in the future. you have been warned. use this time
wisely.

i found it...hard
it was hard to find
oh well...whatever
nevermind...

hello!!!

peace :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [CPOP] educate THE OREGONIAN-PLEASE FORWARD
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:57:44 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,Censorthis1@aol.com

Oh puleease! Take your Gaia worshipping environmentalist nonsense
somewhere else.

Global warming and fossil fuel usage is NOT "killing this planet and its
inhabitants". If you want to debate facts, you can reply to this email.

I suspect that the Oregonian dropped Arianna from its editorial page
because they were getting tired of her and her writing quality was going
down. Then, Arianna gave them an excuse. They might not have done it if
she had started a campaign against AIDS or hunger in Africa, asking people
to donate money to some charity. But almost any kind of a political
campaign would have given them the excuse they were looking for.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 12:28 02/09/03 -0500, you wrote:
>while millions of us are whacking at the branches of evil; only one is
>striking at the root. -henry david thoreau
>
>the issue of suv's is a non issue. period. the issue of burning fossil
>fuels is the issue. it is killing this planet and its inhabitants. which
>you are one of whether you like it or not.
>
>and if fossil fuels were the only thing out there that would work to
>satisfy our human selfish appetites; then i would not be railing you, on
>your ignorance of what a very significant problem is, in our society.
>
>arianna, i have told you the answer atleast 5 times now; and atleast 20
>times if you were actually paying attention. now, i cant believe someone
>of your intellect can consciously miss all of these attempts at educating
>you for your own good and the good of the people. so, i have no other
>choice than to assume you have sold your soul to the no soul gang.
>
>there is no other excuse to point at from my knowing your intentions and
>energies toward your vision of "the 2000 shadow campaigns" and what i see
>as a 3 year waste of your time toward educating yourself on the real
>issues. you have not. you have actually went backwards.
>
>with freedom, comes responsibility. and you have chosen to run from your
>responsibilities toward the pursuit of freedom. therefore, you are not
>worthy to achieve true freedom, and you are being treated accordingly by
>people who are just as ignorant and afraid to achieve what you are not
>trying to achieve.
>
>and the only reason i am attempting one more time to enlighten you; and
>thus bring confidence to you, to do the right thing; is to educate those
>who will read this, toward finding it in yourself to get over the fear of
>collective societal oppression, the right way; and to inform these people
>that we are either going to find nirvana soon; or we are going to all
>become "real time slaves" as in the bloody days of the pharoahs
>"slaves." and if you think i am fuking with you; you have another thing
>coming.
>
>you people are all in a position to understand where the roots are to this
>very old tree of evil that is about to shade the whole planet very soon.
>
>i suggest you all start attempting to strike at the root. we all have
>minds. we can all be heroes. it is just if you; are going to get off
>your ass and do something positive toward the betterment of this planet
>and its inhabitants.
>
>wake up people. you are helping them by not learning this. and that will
>be judged as treason in the future. you have been warned. use this time
>wisely.
>
>i found it...hard
>it was hard to find
> oh well...whatever
>nevermind...
>
>hello!!!
>
>peace :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Rush Limbaugh Calls War Protesters "Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist
Marxists and Communists" - Boycott Limbaugh Advertisers
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:24:04 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>,
Unclesamsucks <unclesamsucks@yahoogroups.com>
CC: Arianna Huffington <arianna@ariannaonline.com>

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/rushbusted.html
--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Image] [Image] [Image][Image][Image] [Image][Image][Image][Image][Image][Image]

[Media Flash] [Image]
AIRWAVES [Image] Help Take Back The Media: Support this
Site
Enid Goldstein [Image] [Image]
Erin Hart [Be A Watcher!!]
Meria Heller Rush Limbaugh calls War Protesters
Joey Joe Joe Show! "Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist Marxists and
KBOO Communists"!!
KPFA // replace with
KPFK - List of Products and Companies to Boycott or http://worldpress.org/feeds/topstories.js
Mike Malloy send Complaints about Limbaugh - UPDATED February//for World Press Review translations and
Shann Nix 9, 2003. Send thank yous to RADIO SHACK, and
Radio Left AMTRAK.
Randi Rhodes
John Rothmann - Update on Overstock.com: "We don't advertise on
Ski & Skinner Rush Limbaugh." ...although their affiliates do.
Ray Taliaferro Send letters to Overstock.
Bernie Ward
WBAI Haven't we had enough of this bellicose burden on
Mike Webb the American airwaves? Are you sick and tired of
Johnny Wendell the Hateful chortling and guffawing - while
Peter Werbe smearing everything that most decent people
WMNF consider the very Freedoms our ancestors or
WKTS Founding Fathers Died to Protect and Honor?

[IEAmerica Radio Network]"...the sponsors of these protests were not peace
protesters at all. They are all talking about
WEB SITES racism, environmental wackoism, feminism or other
liberal causes. Very little about these protests
AdBusters was about the war in Iraq.
Alternet
American Politics If they were for peace, they would give every
Journal dollar they raise to the U.S. defense department
American Prospect because it's the U.S. defense department that
BartCop! keeps the peace and liberates the oppressed in
BuzzFlash the world and gives them the opportunity to have
BushWatch freedom, which is what we want for Iraq. It's
Common Dreams beyond me how anybody can look at these
Consortium News protesters and call them anything other than what
ConWebWatch they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro
Daily Howler Marxists and communists." - Rush Limbaugh
Democrats.com
Dem Underground You can view the rest of his statements on his
FAIR web page where he has singled out groups from the
From The Wilderness A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition in a derogatory and racist
IndyMedia fashion - including several Muslim groups.
Liberal Resurgent Interestingly enough, he made no mention of the
Media Horse Online Pastors, Christian Groups, Veteran Groups, Jewish
Media Channel Groups, or other world organizations who are also
Mother Jones part of the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition.
Michael Moore
Nation There is something we can do about it. We can
New Republic complain directly to the companies that sell
Onion advertising on his show. We can also boycott the
Online Journal same products or institutions he promotes with
Political Strikes his hateful, abhorrent speech and behavior. We've
RackJite made a list for your convenience below.
TalkLeft
Ted Rall Please write to each and every one of these
Tom Tomorrow companies. Tell them why you are no longer
Tom Paine purchasing their wares, foods, or products. Tell
Truthout them that you won't support people like Limbaugh
Village Voice who insult honest working Americans of all races,
creeds and sexual orientation - or his
advertisers. Tell them you'll change the station.
Turn the channel off.

Links liberally Tell them when he's OFF the air you will return
borrowed from to buying their products.And please DO what you
The Lefty Directory say, don't buy what they are selling, make them
feel the pressure of those who can vote with
their dollars.

Tell Rush he's gone too far this time.

And when you are done with his advertisers, write
to Clear Channel's board of directors and tell
them what, when, and why you are not buying. HERE

And it CAN be done! Look at the group that kicked
Limbaugh OFF Amazon.com HERE! Let's Shut him up
or shut him DOWN!

You're Making a Difference! Advertisers respond
to this Action Alert!

- Overstock.com - banner ads are running again,
apparently through an affiliate. Overstock
maintains it does not advertise on Limbaugh. TBTM
action: Send them letters letting them know that
while their banners are on Limbaugh's site,
they're still supporting him - regardless of who
purchased the ad.

- Amtrak - states to have a corporate policy
against advertising on shows such as Rush
Limbaugh. Advertising that is currently running
is part of a barter swap with San Francisco
Convention & Visitors Bureau that ends next week.
They are working on getting these spots removed
from the Rush Limbaugh show. Dan at Amtrak
commended Take Back The Media readers as being an
extremely intelligent, educated bunch and was
impressed by the hundreds of well written letters
received. Official response from the Chief
Marketing Officer. TBTM action: Amtrak removed
from the list. Send them thanks!

- BOSE: claimed to have stopped purchasing
advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show but
listeners have reported hearing Wave Radio ads.
TBTM action: Removal from list.

- Radio Shack: will not buy any advertising
on the Rush Limbaugh show. Read Radio Shack's
official response. TBTM action: Radio Shack
removed from the list. Send them thanks!

- Blue-Emu: says their Rush advertising is
part of a national campaign. In other words, they
intend to continue advertising with Limbaugh.
>>More TBTM action: Email them.

- Avacor: Says they do not support Rush
Limbaugh in any way except for advertising, and
they're taking it to the max - imploring every
person that writes them to "grow some hair!" and
touting their product at every turn. TBTM Action:
Email them.

Here is the List of current Rush Limbaugh
advertisers as of 2/3/03:

Overstock.com
1-800-989-0135
(customer comments and service email)
otherinfo@overstock.com

eharmony
300 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1111
Pasadena, CA 91101
media@eharmony.com
Web contact form

Inverness Medical (maker of stresstabs)
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, MA 02021
1-800-899-7353 weekdays, 8 am. - 6 p.m. (Eastern
Time.)

Onstar
Online comment form

Geico
communications@geico.com
1-800-947-AUTO

Hotwire Corporate Headquarters
333 Market Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94105
advertising@hotwire.com
1-877-HOTWIRE (468-9473)
415-343-8400

Sleep Number Bed
1-800-438-2233

The Neptune Society of Northern California
Stewart Enterprises
12070 Telegraph Road #107
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Oreck Upright Vacuum Cleaners
Oreck Corporation
100 Plantation Road
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123
Online contact form
1-800-289-5888

Smart & Final
Customer Relations
PO Box 512377
Los Angeles, CA 91001-0377
(Heard on KFI 640 in Los Angeles)

Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee
9151 Grapevine Hwy.
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
Phone (800) 733-1110
(web banner ads on rushlimbaugh.com)

AutoZone Inc.
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101
Phone (901) 495-7185
Fax (901) 495-8374
investor.relations@autozone.com

UPDATED - Citracal - Mission Pharmacal
Bennett Kennedy - Citracal Product Manager
Mission Pharmacal
P.O. Box 786099
San Antonio, TX 78278-6099
Phone:(800) 531-3333

Blue-Emu
Blue Emu refuses to give a contact other than
their generic "info" box: <info@nfidiet.com>
1-800-432-9334
http://www.blue-emu.com/

Red Lobster
customer comment form: CLICK HERE
Or Write to:
P.O. Box 593330
Orlando, FL 32859-3330
Guest Relations Hotline
1-800-LOBSTER (1-800-562-7837)

Lumber Liquidators
Toll Free: 877-645-5347
Contact list:
http://www.lumberliquidators.com/contact_us.html

Avacor (hair loss treatment)
(customer comments email)
comments@avacorusa.com

Lazerguide® (golf instruction tool)
PO Box 807
New Hudson Michigan 48165
1-877-266-6430 (toll free)

Mission Pharmacal Company
10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000
San Antonio, TX 78230
Telephone: (800) 531-3333

General Steel Metal Buildings
1075 South Yukon, Ste. 250
Lakewood, Colorado 80226
Toll Free: 1-888-98-STEEL
Phone: 303-904-4837
Fax: 303-979-0084

Life Quotes, Inc.
32045 Castle Court
Evergreen, CO 80439
1-800-670-5433
info@lifequotes.com.au

Select Comfort Corporation
6105 Trenton Lane N
Minneapolis, MN 55442
Phone: 763-551-7000
Fax: 763-551-7826
investorrelations@selectcomfort.com

Scottrade Inc
12855 Flushing Meadows Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63131
1-800-619-SAVE
support@scottrade.com

RegionalHelpWanted.com, Inc.
1 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 506
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
800-365-8630
845-471-5200
Feedback@RegionalHelpWanted.com

The Swap Shop CLICK HERE
3291 East Sunrise
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
swpshop@aol.com
Phone - 954.791.$WAP

Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
212-733-2323

Please send us more Advertisers and Products sold
by Limbaugh. We can either Shut him Up or Shut
him DOWN!

[Image]

Rush Limbaugh BUSTED on Chickenhawk Status!
The mysterious "Greg from Orlando" from the EIB
network gets RUSH Bigtime!

"As with a previous call, when I nicknamed Rush
'The Jabba the Hut of American Politics' (which
stuck and caused him to lose 100 pounds over a
year's time), all of the rest of the show was
dominated by damage-control over my call. A
number of callers took issue with the correct
labeling of most right-wing war-hawks as 'Chicken
Hawks' -- and this allowed Rush to obscure the
issue by claiming that he'd merely not served,
rather than dodged the draft with a bogus 4-F
status. At least nine times that I counted, he
referred to me by name with the usual cheap
smears, and I collected each as a badge of honor
I'm sending to John Kerry to add to his uniform."
>>More

(Editor's Note: We have a wav of this exchange!.
Get it HERE - Only about a half a meg. Windows
users can right click on the "Get it Here" link
to download file and share with others.)



[Top of Page]

who owns the media? | the issue | take action | directories | donate | sponsors | links | about us | contact | home

Copyright 2002, Take Back The Media. | Privacy Policy
All articles linked from this page are copyrighted to the various authors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 18:32:13 -0700
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph A. Rohner III" <realtor@idahojoe.com>
To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; <Lhbeaty@prodigy.net>;
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>;
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>
Cc: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Ron Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>;
"Rob Oates" <robo1421@cableone.net>; "Phyllis Schatz"
<adelaide31@yahoo.com>; "Patty Hautzinger" <Patzinger@earthlink.net>;
"Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>; "Lloyd Barron"
<Lloyd@warbarron.com>; "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; "J. L.
Oyler" <jlo@surfbest.net>; "Bill Anderson" <region2chair@lpidaho.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....

> Mr. Gookin, you have gotten my undivided attention.
>
> Your statement below has finally convinced me that you are not good for
this
> political party, or it's philosophy. Furthermore, while I have been
silent
> for the months and months of your ranting in the chat rooms, hoping to
give
> you the benefit of all doubt, I am convinced that your true colors have
> spilled out. You have demonstrated redundantly to me that you sir, don't
> understand our philosophy and that you probably won't. If you persist in
> this apparent attempt to dump the pledge, I shall make it my personal
> mission to see you disenfranchised from the Libertarian Political Party by
> any legitimate means available to those who sign the pledge. Believe that
> sir.
>
> About a decade or so ago, certain non-thinkers at the National level tried
> to dump the pledge. They failed. So shall you.
>
> Joe Rohner
>
> PS: Someone please forward this to the appropriate chat rooms as I don't
> subscribe. I want everyone in this party to know that in my view, Dan
> Gookin is not fit for office in this party. Thanks
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>
> To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; <Lhbeaty@prodigy.net>;
> <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>;
> <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; <realtor@idahojoe.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....
>
>
> > At 3:48 PM -0800 2/8/03, larry fullmer wrote:
> > >what i continue to wonder about, dan, given your right to step aside
> here,
> > >is whether nor not you agree that christian has no right to be on the
> > >judical committie, short of meeting the existing requirements of ilp
> > >membership?
> >
> > Okay; No, I don't think it should be.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to step forward and say "I
> > am a Libertarian" has the right to do so regardless of whether
> > they've paid the party fine or signed the pledge. I would accept all
> > people equally.
> >
> > I realize others don't like this, but I feel this stance is more
> > Libertarian minded. Judging others on their ability or willingness to
> > fork over money to some useless national organization or sign a
> > pledge means nothing to me. It's what they do that makes a difference.
> >
> > DAN
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re:Arianna
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:53:33 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

>

Paul wrote:
What do you mean global warming isn't a concern? Only
duffeses Like Falwell believe god gave us the right to rape
the earth. Who believes in GAIA here? I don't! Also I suppose
we should deplete all the fossil fuels left in the earth just because
they are there? You believers in god claim he gave us a free will
to do right and wrong. Don't you think humans should exercise
that decision making when in comes to the environment? If not why
don't we cut all trees down in the earth? Then strip mine the entire
planet. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not for veg heads hugging trees.
I'm not a green, just a pragmatist. Why use vehicles that consume
two to three times the fuel? Just so you can pad your greedy fat
ass?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re:Arianna
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:45:55 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

"Paul Freedom" wrote:
>What do you mean global warming isn't a concern?
[Remainder of emotional, insult-laden rant snipped for brevity]

If global warming is a concern, then all of the following MUST be true:

1. The global temperature is actually rising.
2. This rising temperature is bad.
3. The rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are causing the
temperature rise.
4. The way to solve the problem is to cut down on fossil fuel use at all
costs.

If any one of the above statements is false, then the global-warming
hysteria is misguided. (And since Arianna is only asking for voluntary
cooperation, I'll let you off the hook on #4, partially.) The problem is
that all are false.

1. The temperature measurements which show rising worldwide temperatures
are problematic. Many tend to be in urban areas which means that as cities
have grown, the "Heat Island" effect bumps the temperatures up by, in some
cases, an average of 10 degrees. Also, sea water temperature measurements
are taken by ships crossing the oceans. As weather forecasting has evolved
from a black art involving mainly what a seaman could see from the mast, to
a science complete with satellite photos, ships have been able to avoid
storms and sail more often in peaceful, sun-lit, warmer waters. The only
reliable, comprehensive worldwide temperature measurements are those made
by satellites which gives us a record that goes back only 30 years. If I
recall correctly, these show a slight cooling trend, if anything.

2. Bill Anderson posted a link to a site which showed how the
"global-warming" fear-mongers have a custom-designed effect for every
region of the world. If you're from Siberia, then global warming will make
you colder. If you're afraid of floods, you'll get flooded. If you're
afraid of rain, you'll get too much. If you're afraid of drought, that's
what you'll get, etc. Most of it is raw speculation and has little or no
science to back it up.

3. The hypothesis is that the minor rise in carbon-dioxide will cause a
slight increase in water-vapor which is a much more powerful green-house
gas which will in turn cause a greater increase in water-vapor which will
raise the temperature. In other words, there will be some kind of a
positive feedback mechanism which will start to run away. That in itself
is a good reason to doubt the theory. Positive feedback mechanisms seldom
occur in nature because they are so unstable. Think of it as a large round
rock at the top of a hill. You push the rock a little and it starts
rolling. Since it is at the top of a hill, it will keep rolling and
picking up speed. That is a positive feedback mechanism. On the other
hand, if the rock is in a bowl-shaped depression, you have a negative
feedback mechanism. If you push the rock in one direction, it gets harder
to push the further you go, and if you let go, it rolls down past where it
was, then comes back again, until friction finally stops it somewhere near
where it started. The fact that the geologic record shows we've had colder
and hotter times on this world with higher carbon dioxide concentrations in
the atmosphere tells me that there is a negative-feedback mechanism
involved--otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are.

4. Here is where the environmentalists *really* have it wrong. Ever since
Thomas Malthus (in the late 1800s) "proved" that human population would
soon exceed the "carrying capacity of the Earth", we've had people running
around saying that we'd run out of food or something else. They've always
been wrong, because of one thing: they didn't take into account any
technological development. Now, they will deny this, of course, by
claiming that their models *do* take technological developments into
account. But what their models do is claim that technological development
will simply require more resources per person. The fact is that they've
generally (1) got it backwards and (2) oppose technologies that actually
meet their claimed goals, and (3) miss the point that technological
development makes more resources available per person.

You see, we generally migrate to new technologies because they make things
more convenient, safer, quicker, or less costly than the technologies being
replaced. If I don't drive my SUV today, I don't have to go out and pitch
some hay into a manger. And because my SUV doesn't use an agricultural
product, it doesn't compete with a human being for food. Of course, with
the improvements in agricultural technology (including, now
genetically-modified plants) we are approaching the point where we probably
can fuel my SUV with an agricultural product (like Bill's E85) without
someone going hungry.

A hundred years ago, people looking ahead (especially if they were using
the models the environmentalist-wacko crowd has now) would have been afraid
that we'd cut down all the forests (which, in a way, would have been fine
because we were going to need all that land for farming), not be able to
feed our people, and run out of coal by the end of the century--and to top
it all off, the temperature would be rising to 6 degrees above where it is
now. Instead, we now have more forest land, less farm land, more people
(and well-fed, I might add), 500 years worth of known reserves of coal
(which could be converted into oil, if necessary), several new and much
more convenient sources of energy (solar, nuclear, oil, natural gas, wind,
thermal, hydroelectric).

While the US's "proven oil reserves" keep going down (at least in terms of
how many years we have left in them), it's apparently not a problem since
we keep making more new oil fields around the US off-limits to
drilling. There are fairly large fields off every coast, in ANWR, Wyoming,
and probably a few other places, where we can't drill because the "greens"
don't want us to. What they don't understand is that some of the dollars
spent on higher-than-necessary fuel are dollars that don't get spent
developing some of these alternative fuels and energy sources, or
developing ways of squeezing more use out of given amounts of energy or
fuel. In other words, technologies won't get developed to do the very
things these "greens" claim to want.

In short, the most likely cause of environmental catastrophe is
environmentalist-wacko nutcases successfully arguing their case against
each "demon technology" du-jour.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Potassium Iodate-Be Prepared for Dirty Bomb
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:10:08 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
Mary Starrett <marys@kpdq.com>

http://www.thymuskinshampoo.com/KIO3/potassiumiodate.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

What if there was a nuclear event, a power-plant explodes and spews out tons
of radioactive gasses and particles and suddenly YOU and your family are in
danger?

You know that you live pretty far away from the reactor, but the wind still
carries the fallout to your town, even though you live well beyond the
"10-mile danger zone"...


The answer is
[KIO3 potassium iodate]

"The Anti-Radiation Pill"

[Potassium Iodate kio3]

The problem is radioactive iodine caused by fallout from a nuclear accident
or incident. Prevent irreparable harm to your children, your loved ones and
you.

You have seen it on CNN, Fox News ABC and in Newspapers across the US, and
heard us on ABC Radio.

Click here to listen to Radio Interview

with Chuck Fenwick, Chief Instructor, Surgery, Fractures, Pharmacy, Trauma.
(Former) USN: MN, HM3, FMF, 8404, 1st Mar Div, 1st Recon, RVN 69-70; Air
Force: Medic.


We distribute "The Anti-Radiation Pill", which blocks radiation from the
thyroid .

We purchase from the ONLY FDA Approved and Inspected manufacturer of KI and
KIO3™ in the World.

Important Links Below:

Why KI03 KI03 FAQs How much KI03 Do I Need Important Read
Usability Order KI03 Who is at risk

The military stationed in the area are given an Anti-Radiation
Pill, one that blocks the thyroid from absorbing the radiation.
Four days after the event, the fallout begins to fall on the
ground. It is too late to distribute the pills to the
population...

"...But no-one warned us about the radioactive rain...Now I am 17, and for
seven years I have been living with thyroid disease..." -From the book
Voices of Chernobyl

What I am about to tell you may save your life, and more than just that, the
lives of your children.

Please listen carefully:

You have a gland called the thyroid. This small gland,
normally about the size of a golf ball split in half, is
responsible for secretion of growth hormones. Many studies
conclude: The only proven cause of cancer of the thyroid
during childhood is RADIATION.

That’s right, radiation released by any type of nuclear
accident, attack, fallout, gasses venting from an atomic bomb
test or a nuclear power-plant. The real danger to the thyroid
is the type of radiation released from these hazards is in
the form of radioactive iodine. That is what the thyroid
loves: Iodine.
The radioactive Iodine is
absorbed by the thyroid and
can cause thyroid disease
and cancer later on.

Sometimes it only takes a
short time if the victim is
a child! Why? Because a
child’s thyroid is very
active and helping the
child to grow. The smaller
the child, the more active
the thyroid is.

The release of radiation at
Chernobyl clearly proves
that radioactive iodine
released during the
accident caused cancer of
the thyroid in children to
go up 100 times the normal,
and the percentage is still
climbing.

Click HERE for article on
Chernobyl and thyroid.
[thyroid cancer, atomic bomb radiation, nuclear radiation]

I am telling you this because I want you to know that the threat is real,
still present and does NOT have to be in the form of a nuclear attack.
Experts agree that it is very possible that Nuclear Plants are terrorist
targets.
(Click here for more information from our government-sponsored "Center for
Defense Information")

Do you live within 200 miles of a nuclear facility? Would you protect your
family if there was a nuclear accident or event - if you could? Of course
you would.

"HOW do I protect my family and myself from Radiation from a Nuclear Event
or Radioactive-Iodine- induced thyroid cancer?

By taking an inexpensive, non-prescription Anti-Radiation Pill
called KIO3™, or Potassium Iodate.

"What is The Anti-Radiation Pill (or Potassium Iodate)?"

Potassium Iodate (KIO3™) is an Anti-Radiation Pill. KIO3™ will
shield (or block) your body's Thyroid gland and prevent it from
absorbing Radioactive Iodine during a nuclear emergency. For
radiation that is not immediately lethal, this is your body's
most sensitive organ to its effects. -- It works to prevent the
radiation effects from Nuclear Power Plant disasters, Nuclear
Weapons or Atomic Bombs, Terrorist "dirty bombs", Radioactive
Spills, Nuclear Reactor Leaks, Melt-downs, or even Japan's
Uranium enrichment accident.
(More in-depth Questions and Answers are HERE on our other site)

Other facts about KIO3 Anti-Radiation Pills:

* You may have seen it featured in Newsweek, seen it on TV on Fox News,
CNN, ABC or heard us on WLS- AM Chicago Radio or even heard our product
mentioned during the Rush Limbaugh or Doctor Laura shows.
* All of Britain/UK use Potassium Iodate/KIO3™ as "The Anti-Radiation
Pill of Choice" because of the ability to dose children and its long
shelf life. (See the UK Government Department of Health Documents
Here.)
* It is approved by the World Health Organization for World-Wide use as
an Anti-Radiation Pill.
* It is a stable-iodine substance in a convenient tablet form that can be
divided for smaller child dosages.
* The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the WHO (World Health
Organization) recognize KIO3™ as an "Anti-Radiation Pill" or "An
Emergency Thyroid Blocker"
* It has a long shelf life of 10 years or more
* It is inexpensive – about $25 for a bottle of 200 tablets which will be
sufficient to supply 2 adults for 50 days. A family of 4 should buy 3
bottles.
* It is not bitter and children can keep the tablet down.
* It is manufactured in FDA approved facilities, guaranteed fresh and has
certification of 99.70+% purity by Medical Corps.
* Millions of people from many countries all over the world have bought
this life-saving product
* It is common in Europe, Australia, Africa and Asia to have this
life-protecting product on hand for families

ATTENTION: You MUST have this product on hand and take it when the event or
accident occurs for it to be effective. If you do not block your thyroid
with KIO3™ before the radioactive fallout reaches you then it will be TOO
LATE!

"What should I do?"

* Purchase the product for you and your family. Just as you
should have a first-aid kit – you should have a supply of
KIO3™ for your family. Just as you have insurance for your
car in case of an accident, you should have a supply of KIO3™
for your family.
* Click HERE for the pricing page and the secure server order
page. We have a no-risk money-back Purchase Guarantee and we
have a Lifetime Replacement Guarantee!

"Where can I get it?"

* We are a North-American Distributor and purchase from the
manufacturer of KIO3™ Anti-Radiation Pills, so our stock is
always made fresh each day for YOU.
* Click HERE for order


Be aware: If there is a nuclear hazard event or nuclear emergency in this
country for whatever the reason, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THIS
PRODUCT FOR ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY. Why? Because it will be gone. There will
not be any left. Grabbed up and used.

There is another product that is also available called KI or Potassium
Iodide. It performs the exact same function as KIO3™ (Potassium Iodate), but
there are negative issues with KI:

* KI has a shorter shelf life.
* KI is extremely bitter – children have problems keeping it down and
even some adults cannot handle the bitterness.
* KI is more expensive.

Other than these reasons, this product can be used just as KIO3™ is used.

"What if I want the superior KIO3™ and I have a supply of KI?" OR "What if I
have a supply of KI (Potassium Iodide) already and it is getting OLD?"


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Americans! This is Dr. Larry Priano of Medical Corps and as
a physician, I want to give you some important information about
our civil defense.

If there were a nuclear event in our country, radioactive iodine
would be released, which can damage your thyroid gland or even
cause thyroid cancer. This may be prevented by taking potassium
iodate- KIO3™- a thyroid blocker which is the only known
protection for this problem, immediately after fallout.

Medical Corps' KIO3™ tablets are stocked around the world for such
an emergency and they are formulated for both adults and children;
particularly children. The cost is reasonable, they work and could
save your life. They should be part of every family's emergency
kit.

"Knowledge Replaces Fear"

How to order:

Simply click on the Buy_Me button to purchase or visit our store click here

1 Bottle KIO3™ (200 tablets 85 mg each tablet) - shipped by USPS Priority
mail -

$25.00 plus $3.50 shipping [Image]


3 Bottle set of KIO3™ (200 tablets in each 85 mg each tablet)- shipped by
USPS Priority mail -

$65.00 plus $3.50 shipping [Image]


7 Bottle set of KIO3™ (200 tablets in each 85 mg each tablet)- shipped by
USPS Priority mail -

$135.00 plus $3.50 shipping [Image]

Important - Please read the followng:

BEFORE YOU TAKE POTASSIUM IODATE (or any Thyroid Blocker)

Do NOT take a Thyroid Blocker UNLESS the authorities tell you to. This is
not to be used as a supplement. We repeat, do not take KIO3 or any other
Thyroid Blocker UNLESS the authorities tell you to!

Please Consider the following:

* Are you sensitive to iodine?
* Do you suffer from dermatitis herpetiformis (a skin disease)?
* Do you suffer from hypocomplementaemic vasculitis (an inflammation of
the blood vessels)?
* Have you ever been treated for thyrotoxicosis (a condition resulting
from an overactive thyroid gland)?
* Do you have problems with your kidneys?
* Do you have, or are you being treated for problems with your adrenal
glands?
* Are you suffering from dehydration or cramp due to extreme heat?
* Are you taking quinidine, captopril or enalopril?
* Are you currently taking a diuretic (“water tablets”)?

IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE
TAKING ANY THYROID BLOCKER--KI (POTASSIUM IODIDE) OR KIO3 (POTASSIUM IODATE)

TAKING POTASSIUM IODATE ANTI-RADIATION PILLS

The tablets should be taken as a single daily dose within 3 hours of
exposure, or up to 10 hours after exposure, although this is less effective.
Authorities will tell you if there is a need to take KIO3.

The usual recommended “daily dose” is as follows:

* Adults (including the elderly) 2 tablets
* Children aged 3-12 years 1 tablet
* Children aged 1 month-3 years 1/2 tablet
* Newborns to 1 month 1/4 tablet

For young children or newborn children, the 1/2 or 1/4 tablet may be
crushed and taken mixed with milk or water. Under emergency conditions
1/2 tablet may be given to newborns as a starting dose.

In cases of prolonged exposure, repeat dosing may be necessary:

* 1-2 days for a “small” reactor leak
* 10 to 14 days for a “minor” event
* Longer for a catastrophic event

If you are pregnant or breast-feeding you should normally not take more
than two doses for a minor “reactor leak”. Babies up to a month old
should only received one dose for a minor “reactor leak”. However, this
should be determined by authorities.

If you swallow a lot of the tablets all together, or if you think a child
has accidentally swallowed any of the tablets, contact your nearest hospital
emergency room or Doctor immediately.

AFTER TAKING POTASSIUM IODATE

Potassium Iodate can be taken by the majority of people, without any
problems. However, like medicines or even supplements, it may occasionally
cause side-effects in some people. These may include:

* An overactive thyroid gland (characterized by weight loss, increased
appetite, intolerance to heat and increased sweating)
* An enlarged thyroid gland with or without the development of a
condition in which there is thickening of the skin and body tissues,
most notably the face)
* Although rarely, hypersensitivity reactions such as rash, swollen
salivary glands, headache, wheezing or coughing, and stomach upsets may
occur. If you have these or any other effects, while taking Potassium
Iodate or Potassium Iodide tell a doctor immediately.

Keep In mind that if you are allergic to any Iodine product, then you will
also be allergic to Radioactive Iodine. Please consult your doctor if you
have any concerns.




[Image]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:12:02 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: February 6, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case
reveal double standard, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC – Reports that federal investigators may file criminal
charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling
question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe
facing criminal charges as well?

After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic
National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in
stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their
life
savings.

"Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and
another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national
chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and
McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the
federal government."

Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on
Thursday
that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is
accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping
4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one
day
before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer
drug
– an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.

But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double
standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney
and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.

* Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August
2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly
thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost
their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal
prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.

* McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and
former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18
million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in
telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has
since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock,
McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.

"Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to
Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked.
"And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on
Cheney and McAuliffe?

"The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging
in selective prosecution – and if you're a powerful federal official
you're probably not going to be selected.

"But if you're an ordinary American – or a TV celebrity who can be
exploited to benefit someone's career – you'd better abide by the law
or risk having your life turned upside-down by zealous federal
bureaucrats."

Neale emphasized that Libertarians don't know whether the specific
accusations against Stewart, Cheney or McAuliffe are true – only that
their cases are being handled very differently by government
prosecutors.

The result, he said, is that "many people will wonder if justice is a
game in America – in which certain individuals can lose their freedom
and others always seem to win a get-out-of-jail free card."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:26:32 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> ===============================
> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
> Washington DC 20037
> World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
> ===============================
> For release: February 6, 2003
> ===============================

included:

> WASHINGTON, DC - Reports that federal investigators may file criminal
> charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling
> question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe
> facing criminal charges as well?

> After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic
> National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in
> stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their
> life
> savings.

> "Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and
> another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national
> chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and
> McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the
> federal government."

> Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on
> Thursday
> that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is
> accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping
> 4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one
> day
> before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer
> drug
> - an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.

> But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double
> standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney
> and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.

> * Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August
> 2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly
> thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost
> their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal
> prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and
> Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.

> * McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and
> former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18
> million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in
> telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has
> since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock,
> McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.

> "Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to
> Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked.
> "And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on
> Cheney and McAuliffe?

> "The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging
> in selective prosecution - and if you're a powerful federal official
> you're probably not going to be selected.

Oh, horse shit. What about Abscam?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:03:12 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

My how the mighty have fallen. Is this really the best that the national
LP can do? Let's compare: on the one side, we have an out-and-out,
open-and-shut insider-trading case where someone traded on "material
information" that was going to (and did) affect the price of the stock; on
the other side a politician divests himself of private stock holdings under
political pressure (to end a supposed, "potential conflict-of-interest")
several months before he planned to and then the stock tanks several months
after he had originally planned to sell. Both got investigated, the
obviously fraudulent one is getting prosecuted and the obviously innocent
one is not. That's not a "double standard," that's justice!

Now as for the Terry McAuliffe issue, I've long thought that one was a real
issue. I figured that it was a little more of the Clinton sliminess that
was getting him off the hook. But since the LP is going to compare
McAuliffe to Cheney, it sort of makes me wonder if there just isn't some
other innocuous explanation for McAuliffe. When you make a bad case--it
sullies your reputation for any good cases you might be making.

Pretty sad.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

From the Libertarian Party
>===============================
>NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
>===============================
>For release: February 6, 2003
>===============================
>For additional information:
>George Getz, Press Secretary
>Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
>E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
>===============================
>
>Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case
>reveal double standard, Libertarians say
>
>WASHINGTON, DC ­ Reports that federal investigators may file criminal
>charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling
>question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe
>facing criminal charges as well?
>
>After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic
>National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in
>stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their
>life
>savings.
>
>"Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and
>another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national
>chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and
>McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the
>federal government."
>
>Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on
>Thursday
>that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is
>accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping
>4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one
>day
>before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer
>drug
>­ an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.
>
>But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double
>standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney
>and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.
>
>* Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August
>2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly
>thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost
>their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal
>prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and
>Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.
>
>* McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and
>former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18
>million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in
>telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has
>since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock,
>McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.
>
>"Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to
>Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked.
>"And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on
>Cheney and McAuliffe?
>
>"The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging
>in selective prosecution ­ and if you're a powerful federal official
>you're probably not going to be selected.
>
>"But if you're an ordinary American ­ or a TV celebrity who can be
>exploited to benefit someone's career ­ you'd better abide by the law
>or risk having your life turned upside-down by zealous federal
>bureaucrats."
>
>Neale emphasized that Libertarians don't know whether the specific
>accusations against Stewart, Cheney or McAuliffe are true ­ only that
>their cases are being handled very differently by government
>prosecutors.
>
>The result, he said, is that "many people will wonder if justice is a
>game in America ­ in which certain individuals can lose their freedom
>and others always seem to win a get-out-of-jail free card."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: membership statistics - 31 January 2003
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:50:01 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

National Libertarian Party Membership Statistics

Statistics as of 31 January 2003

Total dues-paying members in areas with affiliate parties: 22689
Overall density: 79.7 members per million population

Change since Growth %Growth Growth/pop
four years ago (31Jan1999) -7738 -25.4 -27.2
record high (30Nov1999) -10806 -32.3 -37.9
last pres. election (31Oct2000)-10082 -30.8 -35.4
convention (30Jun2002) -2350 -9.4 -8.3
31 December 2002 (one month) -182 -0.8 -0.6

Highest Ranking States (growth since 31 December 2002 (one
month))

Number Density #Growth %Growth Growth/pop
CA 3933 NH 191.4 NJ 24 NJ 4.6 VT 3.3
GA 1228 AK 179.6 IN 18 ME 3.2 ME 3.1
TX 1228 VT 156.6 NC 10 IN 3.1 IN 2.9
FL 1195 CO 146.9 GA 9 MS 2.6 NJ 2.8
MI 1011 GA 146.5 OR 5 VT 2.1 WY 2.0
PA 885 WA 129.9 WI 5 NC 1.9 NM 1.6
IL 829 NV 122.0 ME 4 WY 1.7 OR 1.4
NY 779 DC 120.7 NM 3 WI 1.6 NC 1.2
WA 778 WY 119.3 FL 2 NM 1.5 GA 1.1
OH 776 CA 114.0 MS 2 OR 1.4 WI 0.9
VA 702 NM 109.9 VT 2 GA 0.7 MS 0.7
MA 654 ID 106.0 OK 1 OK 0.7 OK 0.3
CO 649 OR 106.0 WY 1 FL 0.2 FL 0.1
IN 607 MA 102.5 IA 0 IA 0.0 IA 0.0
NJ 547 MI 101.2 ND 0 ND 0.0 ND 0.0
NC 544 ME 99.5 SD 0 SD 0.0 SD 0.0
AZ 416 IN 99.3 AK -1 NY -0.1 NY -0.1
MD 383 VA 97.7 AR -1 AZ -0.5 KY -0.2
OR 368 MT 92.9 DE -1 KS -0.5 AR -0.4
MO 356 DE 84.2 KS -1 IL -0.7 AZ -0.4
TN 354 HI 80.9 KY -1 KY -0.7 KS -0.4
AL 314 AZ 78.4 NY -1 AR -0.8 IL -0.5
MN 314 CT 77.1 WV -1 TN -0.8 TN -0.5
WI 313 FL 72.9 AZ -2 AK -0.9 WV -0.6
CT 264 KS 72.7 DC -2 CA -1.2 LA -0.9
NV 257 PA 72.0 HI -2 NH -1.2 MN -1.0
SC 248 MD 71.3 ID -2 NV -1.2 TX -1.0
NH 241 AL 70.3 NE -3 WV -1.3 AL -1.1
NM 201 OH 68.2 NH -3 ID -1.4 MO -1.1
KS 196 UT 67.4 NV -3 MI -1.4 DE -1.3
IA 181 NC 66.5 TN -3 DE -1.5 OH -1.3
LA 154 IL 66.4 LA -4 AL -1.6 CA -1.4
OK 154 NJ 64.5 RI -4 MN -1.6 MI -1.4
UT 153 MO 63.2 UT -4 MA -1.7 NV -1.4
KY 144 MN 63.1 AL -5 MO -1.7 PA -1.4
ID 140 IA 61.9 MN -5 TX -1.7 ID -1.5
ME 128 TN 61.7 IL -6 CO -1.8 AK -1.6
AR 120 SC 61.0 MO -6 OH -1.9 HI -1.6
AK 114 WI 57.9 MT -6 PA -1.9 MA -1.7
HI 99 TX 57.6 CT -7 HI -2.0 SC -1.7
VT 96 NE 49.6 SC -7 WA -2.0 NE -1.8
NE 85 ND 48.9 MA-11 VA -2.2 UT -1.8
MT 84 SD 48.9 CO-12 LA -2.5 CT -2.0
MS 79 RI 46.3 MI-14 UT -2.5 VA -2.2
WV 76 AR 44.6 OH-15 CT -2.6 NH -2.4
DC 69 OK 44.5 VA-16 SC -2.7 CO -2.7
DE 67 WV 42.2 WA-16 DC -2.8 WA -2.7
WY 59 NY 41.0 MD-17 NE -3.4 MD -3.2
RI 49 KY 35.4 PA-17 MD -4.3 DC -3.5
SD 37 LA 34.5 TX-21 MT -6.7 RI -3.8
ND 31 MS 27.6 CA-48 RI -7.5 MT -6.6

areas with currently recognized affiliates: 22689
other US areas (territories, etc.) 12
APO/FPO 29
non-US 11
------
22741

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New from Libertarians for Life
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:56:00 -0500
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

LIBERTARIANS FOR LIFE RELEASES
THREE NEW ARTICLES

In "A Libertarian Atheist Answers
'Pro-Choice Catholics'," Doris Gordon
challenges the abortion-choice reasoning
of such figures as Michigan's Governor
Jennifer Granholm. Gordon considers the
Church's teaching and observes that
"faith and reason arrive at the same
[pro-life] position."

In "'Personally Opposed' to Abortion?,"
John Walker critiques the view that one
can both accept fetal personhood and
demand legalized abortion. Even those
who support abortion choice, he writes,
should find that combination "scary."

In "When in Doubt...", Doris Gordon
responds to a Planned Parenthood
rationale (or lack thereof) for abortion.

CONTACT: Libertarians for Life, 13424
Hathaway Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20906,
301/4600-4141; fax 301/871-8552,
libertarian@erols.com,
http://www.L4L.org.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:47:01 -0800
From: "IGBUNU GODWIN" <g.godwin12345@caramail.com>
Reply-To: igbunu@caramail.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

GODWIN IGBUNU
g.godwin12345@caramail.com


Dear Sir,

With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
capability as a result of the death of one of our
contractor (Beneficiary).

I am igbunu godwin, Chief Auditor, Special Project
and Foreign Contract Regularization and Disbursement,
in the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation
of Federal Republic of Nigeria. We work in hand with
the Senate Committee on Foreign Contract Payment. Our
duty is to ensure that all contractors are paid
their contract sum in due time.

This first payment quarter, a total of 30 contractors
were short listed for payment and about 25 of them
have been paid remaining about 5 (Five), information
reaching this office indicates that one among the
remaining has been reported dead. His name is Mr.
Gerrand Schwartz from Sweden, he died in the last Air
France Concorde plane crash. Meanwhile he finished the
execution of his contract December 19th 1999. But
since his death, nobody has come forward to put a
claim to his contract fund which is about
US$7,500,000.00 Million (seven Million five hundred
thousand U.S Dollars) that is why I need your
immediate assistance to expedite the transfer of the
contract amount.

With my position as a Director in the Department of
Contract Regularisation and Disbursement, I will
regularize all the necessary documents and present
your company as the bona-fide beneficiary of this fund
in as much as you respond within 48 hours for
respect of this important message. Your unreserved
cooperation in this business is just what we require
for a successful and hitch - free transaction.
Necessary measures to ensure a risk - free and fool
proof transaction and confidentiality has been taken.

Kindly signify your interest by replying via my
personal e -mail address above. Upon receipt of your
positive reply we shall discuss on (1) Basic Program
for Operation (2) Financial Status as to ascertain
your capability. Upon completion of this transaction
I have decided to give you 30% of the total sum, 60%
of the fund which is our share will be used for
investment in any foreign country of our choice.
While 10% has been mapped out to take care
of any minor expenses incurred.
Take note that this project will last for only 10
working days.
I expect your response in time (within 48 hours) as
time is of great essence in this transaction.

God Bless and Kind Regards,
Godwin Igbunu.

Please you can also reach me with this email
address:igbunu@caramail.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:42:15 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I keep hearing about these Nigerian scams. Never had seen one, though. I
can't believe that anyone would fall for it. Yeah, sure. I suppose the
story is that this "contractor" supposedly did the work, then died and his
heirs and his company aren't able to establish that they are owed the
money. But if some schmuck comes forward, they can claim the money
(provided that they kick most of it back to the contracting officials.)

Riiiight.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 20:47 02/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
>GODWIN IGBUNU
>g.godwin12345@caramail.com
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
> soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
> as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
> capability as a result of the death of one of our
> contractor (Beneficiary).
>
> I am igbunu godwin, Chief Auditor, Special Project
> and Foreign Contract Regularization and Disbursement,
> in the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation
> of Federal Republic of Nigeria. We work in hand with
> the Senate Committee on Foreign Contract Payment. Our
> duty is to ensure that all contractors are paid
> their contract sum in due time.
>
> This first payment quarter, a total of 30 contractors
> were short listed for payment and about 25 of them
> have been paid remaining about 5 (Five), information
> reaching this office indicates that one among the
> remaining has been reported dead. His name is Mr.
> Gerrand Schwartz from Sweden, he died in the last Air
> France Concorde plane crash. Meanwhile he finished the
> execution of his contract December 19th 1999. But
> since his death, nobody has come forward to put a
> claim to his contract fund which is about
> US$7,500,000.00 Million (seven Million five hundred
> thousand U.S Dollars) that is why I need your
> immediate assistance to expedite the transfer of the
> contract amount.
>
> With my position as a Director in the Department of
> Contract Regularisation and Disbursement, I will
> regularize all the necessary documents and present
> your company as the bona-fide beneficiary of this fund
> in as much as you respond within 48 hours for
> respect of this important message. Your unreserved
> cooperation in this business is just what we require
> for a successful and hitch - free transaction.
> Necessary measures to ensure a risk - free and fool
> proof transaction and confidentiality has been taken.
>
> Kindly signify your interest by replying via my
> personal e -mail address above. Upon receipt of your
> positive reply we shall discuss on (1) Basic Program
> for Operation (2) Financial Status as to ascertain
> your capability. Upon completion of this transaction
> I have decided to give you 30% of the total sum, 60%
> of the fund which is our share will be used for
> investment in any foreign country of our choice.
> While 10% has been mapped out to take care
> of any minor expenses incurred.
> Take note that this project will last for only 10
> working days.
> I expect your response in time (within 48 hours) as
> time is of great essence in this transaction.
>
> God Bless and Kind Regards,
> Godwin Igbunu.
>
> Please you can also reach me with this email
> address:igbunu@caramail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:05:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

IGBUNU GODWIN wrote:
> GODWIN IGBUNU
> g.godwin12345@caramail.com
> With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
> soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
> as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
> capability as a result of the death of one of our
> contractor (Beneficiary).

THIS IS SPAM!

Bill, is there anyway to block crap like this from coming in here?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: 11 Feb 2003 20:35:54 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 20:05, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> IGBUNU GODWIN wrote:
> > GODWIN IGBUNU
> > g.godwin12345@caramail.com
> > With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
> > soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
> > as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
> > capability as a result of the death of one of our
> > contractor (Beneficiary).
>
> THIS IS SPAM!
>
> Bill, is there anyway to block crap like this from coming in here?

Not reliably.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:27:29 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > THIS IS SPAM!
> > Bill, is there anyway to block crap like this from coming in here?

And you replied:
> Not reliably.

Oh wonderful! Then I suppose the best thing we can do is simply ignore
it and "hope" it goes away, or doesn't get worse. Once we get
ourselves on several address lists for spam artists, this could easily
become a real annoying problem.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:55:04 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

The following articles from the February 24, 2003 issue of The New
American are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The February 24, 2003 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/02-24-2003/
----------------------------------------

Aiding and Abetting the "Axis"
Even as he prepares to mount an unnecessary war against a prostrate
Iraq,
President Bush is offering critical aid to Saddam's more dangerous
axis-mate, North Korea.

The State of Big Government
President Bush's State of the Union address was one part stirring
rhetoric, five parts socialist vaporings for even more unrestrained
Big
Government.

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:35:49 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Frank,
>The February 24, 2003 issue is available at:
>http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/02-24-2003/
>----------------------------------------
>
>Aiding and Abetting the "Axis"
>Even as he prepares to mount an unnecessary war against a prostrate
>Iraq,
>President Bush is offering critical aid to Saddam's more dangerous
>axis-mate, North Korea.

So, it appears that once again, the Bush administration has shown that it
understands the dictum that "diplomacy is saying 'nice doggy' while you
reach for a big stick." So I'm supposed to get all hot and bothered about
that?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:42:06 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: "Lloyd Barron" <Lloyd@warbarron.com>,
"James Oyler" <constrct@micron.net>,
"Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>, <realtor@idahojoe.com>,
"Larry Fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Rob Oates" <roates@sears.com>,
"Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
"Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>, <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

Greetings again Ron!

Ronald G Wittig posted to Liberty Northwest...

----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>; <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:32 AM
Subject: Fw: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph A. Rohner III" <realtor@idahojoe.com>
> To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; <Lhbeaty@prodigy.net>;
> <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>;
> <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>
> Cc: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Ron Wittig"
<groverw@citlink.net>;
> "Rob Oates" <robo1421@cableone.net>; "Phyllis Schatz"
> <adelaide31@yahoo.com>; "Patty Hautzinger" <Patzinger@earthlink.net>;
> "Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>; "Lloyd Barron"
> <Lloyd@warbarron.com>; "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; "J. L.
> Oyler" <jlo@surfbest.net>; "Bill Anderson" <region2chair@lpidaho.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....

Ron, I don't see how airing the LP of Idaho's dirty laundry out in public on
Liberty Northwest is beneficial. Joe Rohner's remarks don't have much wider
(beyond Idaho) interest, as such, in overall libertarian dialogue. Just a
close look at the subject line seems to suggest this just doesn't seem to
fit here. Yea, I know where this originated, as do you. It's probably best
just to keep it there, where it belongs.

I'm not suggesting this was off-topic, only probably terribly inappropriate.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: 02-12-03 Darklady Interview on Infidelguy.com
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:07:15 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;@bestweb.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:27 PM
Subject: 02-12-03 Darklady Interview on Infidelguy.com

> Please join me tomorrow as I am interviewed by Reginald Vaughn Finley
on
> www.infidelguy.com about my views on atheism, politics, and sexuality
> without guilt.
>
> Wednesday, February 12th
> at 5pm PST/8pm EST
> www.Infidelguy.com
>
> About Reginald Vaughn Finley:
> Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr has astounded the freethought community
with his
> dedication to liberating humanity through his webcast at
www.infidelguy.com.
> He is more well known as "The Infidel Guy." Mr. Finley is a 28 year
old
> native Atlantan and was born into a home of agnostic theists. Now an
> explicit "agnostic atheist" himself, Mr. Finley is very active in the
> freethought community instigating cognitive dissonance wherever he
goes. Mr.
> Finley is the creator and webmaster of "Black Atheists" a site
dedicated to
> dispelling the myth that there are NO black atheists and establishing
a
> method for black atheists to contact each other. He is also co-founder
of
> The Atheist Network (www.atheistnetwork.com), a site that features a
variety
> of atheistic broadcasters discussing topics such as philosophy,
science,
> politics and religion as well as provides an online community for
> non-theists everywhere.
>
> About Darklady:
>
> Theresa A. Reed is a professional writer who specializes in sexuality,
> relationship, Internet culture, and political topics. Best known
online and
> in print as Darklady, she is also an ex-Catholic, now atheist, who has
had
> her own talk radio show. In 2002 she ran for the Oregon House of
> Representatives on the Libertarian ticket, earning 10% of the vote.
She is
> currently Campaign Director for the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Her
adult
> product reviews, sexual advice and insights can be found in magazines
> including Adult Video News (www.avn.com), Playtime (www.playtime.com),
and
> Just Out (www.justout.com), as well as online at the Venus Book Club
> (www.venusbookclub.com), Adult Buzz (www.adultbuzz.com), and Good
Vibrations
> (www.goodvibes.com). She is a regular poster in
alt.recovery.catholicism and
> has also been known to frequent alt.atheism when in search of new Net
Kooks
> to do battle with.
>
> I hope you'll join us!
>
> -- Darklady
> http://www.darklady.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: 02-12-03 Darklady Interview on Infidelguy.com
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:42:40 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> > Please join me tomorrow as I am interviewed by Reginald Vaughn Finley
> on
> > www.infidelguy.com about my views on atheism, politics, and sexuality
> > without guilt.

I guess this shows up well more as a bifurcation between values and
opinions between the east coast vs. western ideal of what really
matters. This, of course, is always a thorny issue when trying to
discuss libertarian idealism across a broad spectrum.

Maybe priorities are in order. What is the most important agenda on
the stage today? Certainly not queer bashing, or libertarine (not
libertarian supported) propaganda, or atheism.

You probably won't find many takers here. Mostly irrelevant in a day
when tax cuts, foreign aggression and intervention, and a lot of other
stuff is largely the focus of national attention.

I just get damn tired of this festering problem with the 'war on
terror', and all of its implications for human liberty. Seems to me
all 'other wars' dwarf in significance to this one.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re:Arianna
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:46:04 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part:

> If global warming is a concern, then all of the following MUST be
true:

Wiat a minute! What if these are true:

> 1. The global temperature is actually rising.
> 2. This rising temperature is bad.

And these aren't:

> 3. The rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are causing the
> temperature rise.
> 4. The way to solve the problem is to cut down on fossil fuel use at
all costs.

But one or both of these are:

5. The increase is because of human activity thru some other mechanism.
6. The increase could be stopped by some human activity.

> If any one of the above statements is false, then the global-warming
> hysteria is misguided. (And since Arianna is only asking for
voluntary
> cooperation, I'll let you off the hook on #4, partially.) The problem
is
> that all are false.

> 2. Bill Anderson posted a link to a site which showed how the
> "global-warming" fear-mongers have a custom-designed effect for every
> region of the world. If you're from Siberia, then global warming will
make
> you colder. If you're afraid of floods, you'll get flooded. If
you're
> afraid of rain, you'll get too much. If you're afraid of drought,
that's
> what you'll get, etc. Most of it is raw speculation and has little or
no
> science to back it up.

What if it's a mixture of good & bad -- good for some people, bad for
others? Like redistribution policies.

> 3. The hypothesis is that the minor rise in carbon-dioxide will cause
a
> slight increase in water-vapor which is a much more powerful
green-house
> gas which will in turn cause a greater increase in water-vapor which
will
> raise the temperature. In other words, there will be some kind of a
> positive feedback mechanism which will start to run away. That in
itself
> is a good reason to doubt the theory. Positive feedback mechanisms
seldom
> occur in nature because they are so unstable.

Not so. I can give examples of natural systems in which there are both
positive & negative feedback systems that make the system meta-stable.
Because of the positive feedback, the system will easily switch from one
meta-stable state to another. For instance, positive feedback provides
signal amplification in the immune system, causing a body or part
thereof to switch quickly from a non-inflamed to inflamed condition.

> The fact that the geologic record shows we've had colder
> and hotter times on this world with higher carbon dioxide
concentrations in
> the atmosphere tells me that there is a negative-feedback mechanism
> involved--otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are.

Sure, there are negative feedback mechanisms, but they may come into
play only after a switch (facilitated by positive feedback) from one
metastable state to another. Ice ages, for instance, may be caused by
such switching.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re:Arianna
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:03:16 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Robert!
>"Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part:
>
> > If global warming is a concern, then all of the following MUST be
>true:
>
>Wiat a minute! What if these are true:
>
> > 1. The global temperature is actually rising.
> > 2. This rising temperature is bad.
>
>And these aren't:
>
> > 3. The rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are causing the
> > temperature rise.
> > 4. The way to solve the problem is to cut down on fossil fuel use at
>all costs.
>
>But one or both of these are:
>
>5. The increase is because of human activity thru some other mechanism.
>6. The increase could be stopped by some human activity.

Then the logical conclusion would be that we should be engaging in the
"some human activity" of your premise 6. Which may not be the same as my
statement 4. I'll admit that I lumped into the "global warming concern"
the idea that carbon-dioxide levels are the culprit. But since my 4
statements are essentially the "global warming" argument that is usually
(if not always given) and since we are talking about Arianna Huffington's
campaign against SUVs, my "lumping" is perfectly reasonable.

The other problem is that if global warming is caused by some other
mechanism of human activity, then "fighting global warming" by reducing
carbon-dioxide emissions risks "blowing our wad" without fixing the real
problem.

> > If any one of the above statements is false, then the global-warming
> > hysteria is misguided. (And since Arianna is only asking for
>voluntary
> > cooperation, I'll let you off the hook on #4, partially.) The problem
>is
> > that all are false.
>
> > 2. Bill Anderson posted a link to a site which showed how the
> > "global-warming" fear-mongers have a custom-designed effect for every
> > region of the world. If you're from Siberia, then global warming will
>make
> > you colder. If you're afraid of floods, you'll get flooded. If
>you're
> > afraid of rain, you'll get too much. If you're afraid of drought,
>that's
> > what you'll get, etc. Most of it is raw speculation and has little or
>no
> > science to back it up.
>
>What if it's a mixture of good & bad -- good for some people, bad for
>others? Like redistribution policies.

That would imply that reducing global warming is then "bad for some people,
good for others." You're just redistributing it the opposite way. Of
course, if you are spending extra to reduce global warming on top of that
then you've raised the cost so that even the "winners" may only be breaking
even.

> > 3. The hypothesis is that the minor rise in carbon-dioxide will cause
>a
> > slight increase in water-vapor which is a much more powerful
>green-house
> > gas which will in turn cause a greater increase in water-vapor which
>will
> > raise the temperature. In other words, there will be some kind of a
> > positive feedback mechanism which will start to run away. That in
>itself
> > is a good reason to doubt the theory. Positive feedback mechanisms
>seldom
> > occur in nature because they are so unstable.
>
>Not so. I can give examples of natural systems in which there are both
>positive & negative feedback systems that make the system meta-stable.
>Because of the positive feedback, the system will easily switch from one
>meta-stable state to another. For instance, positive feedback provides
>signal amplification in the immune system, causing a body or part
>thereof to switch quickly from a non-inflamed to inflamed condition.

And is there evidence from the geologic record that the earth's temperature
switches between "meta-stable" states? Do the people proposing the
green-house gas hypothesis claim that such "meta-stable" mechanisms are
present in the atmosphere? Or do they simply propose a positive feedback
mechanism? (My limited knowledge of complex-organism biology would
indicate that "shock" creates a positive-feedback loop that is fatal unless
it is reversed by treatment.)

> > The fact that the geologic record shows we've had colder
> > and hotter times on this world with higher carbon dioxide
>concentrations in
> > the atmosphere tells me that there is a negative-feedback mechanism
> > involved--otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are.
>
>Sure, there are negative feedback mechanisms, but they may come into
>play only after a switch (facilitated by positive feedback) from one
>metastable state to another. Ice ages, for instance, may be caused by
>such switching.

Again, have the people proposing the global warming hypothesis claimed any
such mechanisms to cause this metastable state switching? (I think I've
heard of some such hypothesis regarding ice ages, as you mention. But what
about such a state that is warmer than we currently enjoy? What are the
mechanisms for that and why have there been both ice ages and warmer
periods when the concentrations of carbon dioxide were higher than they are
now?)

The far more likely hypothesis (at least, given the evidence) is that the
temperature variations are caused by some sort of variation in the output
of the sun. If that's the case, then a far more productive approach would
be to forget about it, grow wealth as fast as possible and as widely as
possible so that people can better deal with whatever comes up. A wealthy,
technologically-advanced society is going to be much more able to deal with
any kind of a disaster than a poor society which has stunted its technology
advancement to address some perceived threat.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re:Arianna
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:42:43 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in part:

> And is there evidence from the geologic record that the earth's
temperature
> switches between "meta-stable" states?

There's some evidence of such states. I guess it depends on statistical
analysis of the data, as to whether you see plateaus in the
fluctuations.

> Do the people proposing the
> green-house gas hypothesis claim that such "meta-stable" mechanisms
are
> present in the atmosphere? Or do they simply propose a positive
feedback
> mechanism?

I've read both.

> (My limited knowledge of complex-organism biology would
> indicate that "shock" creates a positive-feedback loop that is fatal
unless
> it is reversed by treatment.)

Yes, cardiovascular physiology has such features -- homeostatic within a
certain range, self-accelerating pathology outside that range.

> The far more likely hypothesis (at least, given the evidence) is that
the
> temperature variations are caused by some sort of variation in the
output
> of the sun.

That's my hunch too.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re:Arianna
Date: 15 Feb 2003 13:18:29 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 07:42, Robert Goodman wrote:

> > The far more likely hypothesis (at least, given the evidence) is that
> the
> > temperature variations are caused by some sort of variation in the
> output
> > of the sun.
>
> That's my hunch too.

Likewise. It is the most logical of explanations I have seen.

Cheers,
Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LOOKING FOR TRUSTED PARTNER
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:20:41 -0800
From: "MR.YARO BAMIYI" <doomer@themail.com>
Reply-To: boomer2@netster.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

ATTN: Sir/Madam.


My name is MR YARO BAMIYI, the eldest son of Rtd
General
BUBA S.G.BAMIYI, who was the estwhile Minister
of the Federal Capital territory Abuja in thelate
General Sani Abachas Regime of 1993-1998.I am
contacting you in a benevolent spirit; utmost
confidence and trust to enable us provide a solution
to a money transfer of $25M that is presently putting
my entire family into great disarray.

You may be quite surprised at my sudden contact to you
but do not despair, I got your contact from a business
site on the internet and following the information I
gathered about you, I was convinced that you could be
of assistance to me. So,I decided to contact you at
once due to the urgency required for us to immediately
transfer the said funds out of the country.

During the time my father was in the government with
the late General Sani Abacha as the head of state,they
were both involved in several deals that yielded
Billions of Dollars. The prominent amongst the deals
was monies that emanated from funds set aside for the
importation of Arms and Ammunitions to boost the
Nigerian Defense, funds set to embark on an oversea
ampaign to counter the United States action to put a
stop to the self succession bid of the Abacha
government to retain power, and monies set aside to
rehabilitate the ailing Nigerian Petroleum Refineries
and the National Electric Power Authority which
supplies Electricity to the entire nation. If you are
conversant with world news, you would understand
better.

During this period my father was able to make some
good money for himself and kept in his private bank
accounts. The then head of state General Sani Abacha
transferred his share of the money through a Lebanese
businessman, Chagoury and a Jewish businessman, Mark
Rissar to bank accounts overseas. Unfortunately, all
the secrets were revealed by the investigation
agencies set up by the successive governments and most
of the Abacha?s loots were traced and repatriated
fromthe various accounts to the Federal Government
Treasury.

Out of the money my father made, he left the sum of
N50 Million (Fifty Million Naira) in the CBN escrow
account for further transfer into a foreign account
and a sum of $25M (TWENTY-FIVE Million Dollars) was
kept in a Private security firm here in Nigeria.
Through the confessions made by the Abacha?s Family,
the N50 Million was recovered by the investigating
agency from the CBN escrow account. But were unable to
discover the $25M, which he kept in the vaults. The
reason is because no names were used to lodge in the
funds.Instead, he used PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
(PIN) and declared the contents as Bearer Bonds and
Treasury Bills. Also the firm issued him with a
certificate of deposit of the consignments. Note thatI
have these information in my custody.

Right now, my father has been arrested and detained
for interrogation. As the eldest son of my Father, I
believe that I owe the entire family an obligation to
ensure that the $25M is successfully transferred
abroad for investment purposes. With the present
situation, I cannot do it all by myself.

It is based on this that I am making this contact with
you. I have done a thorough homework and fine-tuned
the best wayto create you as the beneficiary to the
funds and effect the transfer accordingly. Is rest
assured that the modalities I have resolved to
finalize the entire project guarantees our safety and
the successful transfer of the funds. So, you will be
absolutely right when you say that this project is
risk free and viable. If you are capable and willing
to assist,contact me at once via email for more
details.

Believe me, there is no one else we can trust gain.All
my fathers friends have deserted us after exploiting
us on the pretence of trying to help my father. As it
is said, "it is at the time of problems that you know
your true friends". So long as you keep everything to
yourself, we would definitely have no problems. For
your assistance, I am ready to give you as much as 20%
of the total funds after transfer and invest a
reasonable percentage into any viable business you may
suggest.

Please, I need your assistance to make this happen and
please; do not undermine it because it will also be
asource of up liftment to you also. You have
absolutely nothing to loose in assisting us
instead,you have so much to gain.

Awaiting your urgent and positive response.
Best Regards

MR.YARO BAMIYI.

Alternative Email:(yaroroyal@bluemail.ch) OR (yarobamiyi@themail.com)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR TRUSTED PARTNER
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:00:49 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <boomer2@netster.com>

Bill,

Here's another one.

Frank

ATTN: Sir/Madam.


My name is MR YARO BAMIYI, the eldest son of Rtd
General
BUBA S.G.BAMIYI, who was the estwhile Minister
of the Federal Capital territory Abuja in thelate
General Sani Abachas Regime of 1993-1998.I am
contacting you in a benevolent spirit; utmost
confidence and trust to enable us provide a solution
to a money transfer of $25M that is presently putting
my entire family into great disarray.

You may be quite surprised at my sudden contact to you
but do not despair, I got your contact from a business
site on the internet and following the information I
gathered about you, I was convinced that you could be
of assistance to me. So,I decided to contact you at
once due to the urgency required for us to immediately
transfer the said funds out of the country.

During the time my father was in the government with
the late General Sani Abacha as the head of state,they
were both involved in several deals that yielded
Billions of Dollars. The prominent amongst the deals
was monies that emanated from funds set aside for the
importation of Arms and Ammunitions to boost the
Nigerian Defense, funds set to embark on an oversea
ampaign to counter the United States action to put a
stop to the self succession bid of the Abacha
government to retain power, and monies set aside to
rehabilitate the ailing Nigerian Petroleum Refineries
and the National Electric Power Authority which
supplies Electricity to the entire nation. If you are
conversant with world news, you would understand
better.

During this period my father was able to make some
good money for himself and kept in his private bank
accounts. The then head of state General Sani Abacha
transferred his share of the money through a Lebanese
businessman, Chagoury and a Jewish businessman, Mark
Rissar to bank accounts overseas. Unfortunately, all
the secrets were revealed by the investigation
agencies set up by the successive governments and most
of the Abacha?s loots were traced and repatriated
fromthe various accounts to the Federal Government
Treasury.

Out of the money my father made, he left the sum of
N50 Million (Fifty Million Naira) in the CBN escrow
account for further transfer into a foreign account
and a sum of $25M (TWENTY-FIVE Million Dollars) was
kept in a Private security firm here in Nigeria.
Through the confessions made by the Abacha?s Family,
the N50 Million was recovered by the investigating
agency from the CBN escrow account. But were unable to
discover the $25M, which he kept in the vaults. The
reason is because no names were used to lodge in the
funds.Instead, he used PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
(PIN) and declared the contents as Bearer Bonds and
Treasury Bills. Also the firm issued him with a
certificate of deposit of the consignments. Note thatI
have these information in my custody.

Right now, my father has been arrested and detained
for interrogation. As the eldest son of my Father, I
believe that I owe the entire family an obligation to
ensure that the $25M is successfully transferred
abroad for investment purposes. With the present
situation, I cannot do it all by myself.

It is based on this that I am making this contact with
you. I have done a thorough homework and fine-tuned
the best wayto create you as the beneficiary to the
funds and effect the transfer accordingly. Is rest
assured that the modalities I have resolved to
finalize the entire project guarantees our safety and
the successful transfer of the funds. So, you will be
absolutely right when you say that this project is
risk free and viable. If you are capable and willing
to assist,contact me at once via email for more
details.

Believe me, there is no one else we can trust gain.All
my fathers friends have deserted us after exploiting
us on the pretence of trying to help my father. As it
is said, "it is at the time of problems that you know
your true friends". So long as you keep everything to
yourself, we would definitely have no problems. For
your assistance, I am ready to give you as much as 20%
of the total funds after transfer and invest a
reasonable percentage into any viable business you may
suggest.

Please, I need your assistance to make this happen and
please; do not undermine it because it will also be
asource of up liftment to you also. You have
absolutely nothing to loose in assisting us
instead,you have so much to gain.

Awaiting your urgent and positive response.
Best Regards

MR.YARO BAMIYI.

Alternative Email:(yaroroyal@bluemail.ch) OR (yarobamiyi@themail.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER

To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org

URLs for Liberty Northwest:
Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR TRUSTED PARTNER
Date: 13 Feb 2003 07:41:25 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 05:00, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Here's another one.

Frank, might I suggest NOT REPOSTING THEM?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:37:45 -0800
From: "DR.MARTIN ZINGAWA" <martzing22@212.com>
Reply-To: martz2@themail.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

ATTN: sir/madam,

I am a member of the contract award committee,federal ministry of petroleum
and

resources,Nigeria. I am in search of an agent to assist us in transfer of

(USD35m)and subsequent investment in properties in your country, you will be
required to

(1) Assist in the transfer of the said sum

(2) Advise on lucrative area for investment

(3) Assist us in purchase of properties.

(4) send me your banking details,home address and private telephone/fax
number

If you decide to render your service to us in this regard, 15% of the total

sum of the above will be for you, and 10% for any expenses incured during
the process.

Please if you are interested kindly sent an email to me so that i can give
you the modalities.

Alternative Email:(martzing@212.com)

Yours faithfully,

MARTIN ZINGAWA

Fax:234 1 7599389.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BUSINESS PROPOSAL
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:59:08 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hello Bill!

Any suggestions. We don't really need this around here.

Is there any way this system can be configured to "subscribers only"? There
are two more, as of today. If this continues to proliferate, we'll have to
look at other options fast.

Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: DR.MARTIN ZINGAWA <martzing22@212.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:37 AM
Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL

ATTN: sir/madam,

I am a member of the contract award committee,federal ministry of petroleum
and

resources,Nigeria. I am in search of an agent to assist us in transfer of

(USD35m)and subsequent investment in properties in your country, you will be
required to

(1) Assist in the transfer of the said sum

(2) Advise on lucrative area for investment

(3) Assist us in purchase of properties.

(4) send me your banking details,home address and private telephone/fax
number

If you decide to render your service to us in this regard, 15% of the total

sum of the above will be for you, and 10% for any expenses incured during
the process.

Please if you are interested kindly sent an email to me so that i can give
you the modalities.

Alternative Email:(martzing@212.com)

Yours faithfully,

MARTIN ZINGAWA

Fax:234 1 7599389.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER

To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org

URLs for Liberty Northwest:
Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BUSINESS PROPOSAL
Date: 13 Feb 2003 07:40:50 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 04:59, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Hello Bill!
>
> Any suggestions. We don't really need this around here.
>
> Is there any way this system can be configured to "subscribers only"?
There

That can be done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:15:16 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage, commenting on the Feb. 24 2003 issue of TNA, wrote...

TNA published:
> >Aiding and Abetting the "Axis"
> >Even as he prepares to mount an unnecessary war against a prostrate
> >Iraq,
> >President Bush is offering critical aid to Saddam's more dangerous
> >axis-mate, North Korea.

You replied:
> So, it appears that once again, the Bush administration has shown that it
> understands the dictum that "diplomacy is saying 'nice doggy' while you
> reach for a big stick." So I'm supposed to get all hot and bothered about
> that?

I would like to agree with you. Sadly I can't. The Shrub Regime<tm> is
quickly being widely recognized as by far a worse threat than that in which
the recognized terrorist pose. I doubt that 'gun boat' diplomacy will be in
vogue much longer.

You'd better get hot and bothered. The US dollar has already sunk to
historical lows against the Euro, we are becoming increasingly isolated as a
"rogue state" of our own making. We've created this stinking mess, and have
been doing so for the last five decades, and now, it may finally be coming
to and end! Stick you head in the sand a little longer, and you'll likely
discover that with less air to breath, US aggression will finally receive
its rightful due, thumbs down. This may indeed by our last, and final,
showdown.

The big stick "bully" might finally find the stick broken, and be put in its
rightful place between its groin.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:43:55 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> The big stick "bully" might finally find the stick broken, and be
> put in its rightful place between its groin.

This fascist rhetoric does not excuse any limits on freedom.

I do not want anyone to continue promoting the cause of Saddam
Hussein. I would much prefer that they start promoting a kind
of libertarianism that means freedom from dirty bombs.

Does the Libertarian Party remember the Declaration
of Independence?

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.

Notice that life comes first and that Saddam
is a threat to that life.

Regards
Tim

It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:31:47 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>Lowell Savage, commenting on the Feb. 24 2003 issue of TNA, wrote...
>
>TNA published:
> > >Aiding and Abetting the "Axis"
> > >Even as he prepares to mount an unnecessary war against a prostrate
> > >Iraq,
> > >President Bush is offering critical aid to Saddam's more dangerous
> > >axis-mate, North Korea.
>
>You replied:
> > So, it appears that once again, the Bush administration has shown that
it
> > understands the dictum that "diplomacy is saying 'nice doggy' while you
> > reach for a big stick." So I'm supposed to get all hot and bothered
about
> > that?
>
>I would like to agree with you. Sadly I can't. The Shrub Regime<tm> is
>quickly being widely recognized as by far a worse threat than that in which
>the recognized terrorist pose. I doubt that 'gun boat' diplomacy will be in
>vogue much longer.

"Recognized" as a threat by whom?

The leader of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys? (See "Hoist by their
own Petain" at
http://silflayhraka.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_silflayhraka_archive.html which
leaves out Haiti, Mexico, and their little imbroglio with Greenpeace where
they blew up a ship and then paid 8 million in damages.)

The former commie agitators and possibly terrorist sympathizers from the
country that gave us the Nazis? (See :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59725-2003Feb11.html)

The former head of the KGB? (Does this really need a reference?)

Or are you talking about the 8 members of NATO that support us (or is it 10
or 16, one loses track after awhile?) Or the 10 NATO member wanna-be's, or
Australia, or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait?

Actually, it seems to me that you have France, Germany, possibly Russia and
possibly Syria who are against it. None of them is going to lift a finger
if we go, however. Iran seems to be merely standing by. Same with
China. Seems to me that those are the folks that are hanging out there
alone.

>You'd better get hot and bothered. The US dollar has already sunk to
>historical lows against the Euro, we are becoming increasingly isolated as
a
>"rogue state" of our own making. We've created this stinking mess, and have
>been doing so for the last five decades, and now, it may finally be coming
>to and end! Stick you head in the sand a little longer, and you'll likely
>discover that with less air to breath, US aggression will finally receive
>its rightful due, thumbs down. This may indeed by our last, and final,
>showdown.

I guess we'll see, won't we.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:47:47 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >I would like to agree with you. Sadly I can't. The Shrub Regime<tm> is
> >quickly being widely recognized as by far a worse threat than that in
which
> >the recognized terrorist pose. I doubt that 'gun boat' diplomacy will be
in
> >vogue much longer.

You replied:
> "Recognized" as a threat by whom?

I was referring to, although I didn't state it earlier, to the recent public
opinion poll conducted in Britain. Who is the greatest threat to world
peace, the US, or Iraq? Iraq lost. The US was considered to be the greatest
threat to world peace. So, even though the British seem to be our
staunchest ally today in this obsession for war, even the British may be
having second thoughts about the make up of the next British government, in
the absence of Tony Blair.

Also, European economic considerations at this time, are far different from
that of America. Germany is falling again into a deep recession, and the
prospects for recovery aren't even on the horizon for the near term.

As I wrote last time: This may indeed be a watershed of sorts of historical
proportions if this war really does take place. It could destroy America's
alliance in Europe and at the same time downgrade the significance of the
United Nations. Yea, I don't consider this especially bad. In fact, I would
endorse and support the dissolution between the US/NATO and the UN even to
the point of abrogating all such alliances.

The outcome could conceivably be that the US is more confined to its own
legitimate interests, and even perhaps severing such ties that have no US
interests at all. I'm all for that. We're not there yet by a long shot.
But if this 'war' is really seen on the world horizon as a US war, whether
we win or loose may not matter so much if it is opposed by the majority of
the world. Again, that's not so bad either. We may be proved we are the
bully on the world stage for the last time, and things will change to put us
into our own corner and concern. Nothing wrong with that either.

To make all of that happen, of course, will depend largely upon the next
election in 2004. If the Shrub Regime<tm> is roundly defeated because of the
economic downturn and questionable war hysteria, and also drawing into the
mix that present alliances are not sustainable, then the shift may become
more in focus on America's best interests. Less hostilities and more
bi-lateral discussions, rather than using the US military to dictate global
realities.

I'm not suggesting here at all that we should downsize the US military. We
should continue to build up every major defence system and remain the
strongest military power on earth. But we need to use that power only when
America, or American interests are truly threatened. Not supporting
alliances and seeking to topple governments that have no direct threat to US
interests.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:48:16 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > The big stick "bully" might finally find the stick broken, and be
> > put in its rightful place between its groin.

You replied:
> This fascist rhetoric does not excuse any limits on freedom.
> I do not want anyone to continue promoting the cause of Saddam
> Hussein. I would much prefer that they start promoting a kind
> of libertarianism that means freedom from dirty bombs.

Like the ones used at Nagasaki or Hiroshima? I'm not promoting Saddam
Hussein's causes. Only asking that the US government really promotes US
interests in a way that doesn't involve military force. Or force at all!
Unless, that is, that we are threatened or attacked by another foreign
power. France and Belgium -- possibly Russia, and certainly Germany, don't
care about US interests very much. This may be a sobering time for US
policy makers to re-consider our alliances.

> Does the Libertarian Party remember the Declaration
> of Independence?

Sure we do. Have you read it recently?

> 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.

So, what's your point? Libertarians certainly are in total agreement with
this statement.

> Notice that life comes first and that Saddam
> is a threat to that life.

A threat to America? I doubt it otherwise. Who's life is being threatened by
Saddam Hussein? Has Iraq declared war on America? Only if America
threatens Iraq with invasion or use of force. It appears that is a
qualified statement, if nothing else. Truth is, and you know it, America
(with Britain as its lackey) is the only one threatening military force
against Iraq as we speak. How do you justify that?

Libertarians would likely almost unanimously agree: Iraq has a right to
defend itself against aggression.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:46:38 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 08:47 02/16/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
>I previously wrote:
> > >I would like to agree with you. Sadly I can't. The Shrub Regime<tm> is
> > >quickly being widely recognized as by far a worse threat than that in
>which
> > >the recognized terrorist pose. I doubt that 'gun boat' diplomacy will
be
>in
> > >vogue much longer.
>
>You replied:
> > "Recognized" as a threat by whom?
>
>I was referring to, although I didn't state it earlier, to the recent
public
>opinion poll conducted in Britain. Who is the greatest threat to world
>peace, the US, or Iraq? Iraq lost. The US was considered to be the greatest
>threat to world peace. So, even though the British seem to be our
>staunchest ally today in this obsession for war, even the British may be
>having second thoughts about the make up of the next British government, in
>the absence of Tony Blair.

Yes, I suppose you are correct, here, that Blair may be in
trouble. Although I was browsing through a bunch of Churchill biographies
on the net looking for a particular quote of his and found that until
Germany invaded Norway, the British people generally figured that war could
(and should) be avoided. They probably weren't quite ready to say that
Churchill was a greater danger to world (or even european) peace than
Hitler, but it might have been close. It would appear that their children
and grandchildren haven't learned and that they happen to be lucky enough
to have a leader who has learned.

>Also, European economic considerations at this time, are far different from
>that of America. Germany is falling again into a deep recession, and the
>prospects for recovery aren't even on the horizon for the near term.

Well, at least they don't have a leader who is declaring that this proves
that "the Germanic people have outgrown their current national
boundaries." Of course, the economic policies aren't a lot different. But
what does this have to do with whether (or why) the US is "widely
recognized as by far a worse threat..."??

>As I wrote last time: This may indeed be a watershed of sorts of historical
>proportions if this war really does take place. It could destroy America's
>alliance in Europe and at the same time downgrade the significance of the
>United Nations. Yea, I don't consider this especially bad. In fact, I would
>endorse and support the dissolution between the US/NATO and the UN even to
>the point of abrogating all such alliances.

Righto, there--on both the effects and the desirability. Although I think
that the actions of France, Germany and Belgium wrt Turkey have probably
doomed NATO--regardless of whether there is a war or not.

>The outcome could conceivably be that the US is more confined to its own
>legitimate interests, and even perhaps severing such ties that have no US
>interests at all. I'm all for that. We're not there yet by a long shot.

My guess is that its more likely that we will make bilateral deals with
individual nations and that most nations will want to make those deals with
us. After all, money talks even more to some of them than it does to
us. The democratic nations will get the deals pretty easily. The
less-democratic nations and the "president-for-life" nations will get deals
contingent on behavior and moves toward democracy. The few that won't do
the deals are already our enemies. Also look for more things like NAFTA
and for things like NAFTA to get expanded. (Whether that's good, bad, or
indifferent--I happen to think good--is a different topic.)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:25:51 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Libertarians would likely almost unanimously agree: Iraq has a right
> to defend itself against aggression.

Criminals have lost their rights.

According to you, the Mafia could say that the actions
of the police constitute aggression.

Are you going to defend the mob against agression?
Regards
Tim

No Compromises
Sheridan: You're good with diplomacy when possible
but you know how to fight when you have to

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Terror alert
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:31:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: February 13, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Latest terror alert proves government has failed
at its most basic mission, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC - The heightened terror alert is actually a "Government
Incompetence Alert," Libertarians say, because the government is
admitting that it cannot perform its most basic function: national
defense.

"What's truly alarming is that a government that will confiscate $2.2
trillion from its citizens this year is powerless to protect them,"
said Libertarian Party Chair Geoffrey Neale. "And that should make
Americans more angry than afraid."

As the directors of the CIA and FBI testified before the Senate
Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, they described new threats from al-
Qaeda and elaborated on their decision to raise the terrorist threat
level from yellow to orange.

Federal officials are urging that Americans to stockpile food and
water, make arrangements for contacting family members during an
emergency, and buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal homes in the
event of a chemical or biological attack.

But Libertarians say all of these warnings would be unnecessary if the
government were doing its job.

"Why are Americans who have been forced to fork over hundreds of
billions of dollars for tanks, missiles and other high-tech weaponry
now being told to defend themselves with duct tape and plastic
sheets?" asked Neale. "Because the government has failed to perform
one of its most basic - and least controversial - functions: defending
the nation from armed aggression."

Like most government failures, this one is expensive, Neale noted.

"This year the Defense Department budget will be at least $365
billion," he said. "Shouldn't politicians explain why we aren't very
well defended?

"The Department of Homeland Security will cost $36.2 billion.
Shouldn't politicians explain why we aren't very secure?

"Taxpayers will also shell out an estimated $30 billion for the CIA;
$4.3 billion for the FBI; and $3.5 billion for the National Security
Agency.

"Yet after spending nearly a half-trillion a year on these defense
agencies, the nation seems less secure than ever. Instead of
cavalierly
issuing more terror alerts, politicians should hang their heads in
shame and apologize to the American people for this monumental failure
to do their jobs."

Unfortunately, if another terror attack does occur, politicians will
be
tempted to respond by spending even more money and writing yet another
'anti-terrorism' bill, Neale predicted.

But that approach won't work.

"It is absolutely impossible for the government to protect 280 million
individual Americans from terrorism or other random crimes," he said.
"People who are willing to commit horrific acts of violence and even
commit suicide in the process will always be able to kill scores of
innocent people."

That's why the solution to terrorism must include adopting a 'Protect
America First' foreign policy, Neale said, which calls for bringing
all
U.S. troops home, ending military intervention and foreign aid, and
never launching a 'pre-emptive' military strike.

"A Swiss-style foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention would
make terrorist attacks less likely while still protecting our
borders," he said.

"Until that decision is made, every terror alert will be a frightening
reminder of our government's inability to protect us."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Happy Valentine's Day!
From: "Brian Brown" <brian@abbalove.com>
To: "[libnw]" <libnw@immosys.com>

Happy Valentine's Day!

I wanted to take a few minutes to wish you a very
Happy Valentine's Day, Friends!
Your friendship has been truly appreciated but even more than that, I value
your friendship and the pleasure of knowing you.
Have a great day!
All the best,
Brian Brown, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Handicapped Communication Services, Inc.
E-mail: brian@abbalove.com
Phone: 816-531-3800

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: e-mailmessage13211.htm
e-mailmessage13211.htm Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)
Encoding: quoted-printable

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:10:01 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's a little L. Neil Smith essay that I missed when it first came
out. It starts out a bit depressing but ends on an upbeat note.

http://www.rationalreview.com/archive/lneilsmith/lneilsmith020103.html

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Get the facts on the Oklahoma City Bombing
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:32:02 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Recent reports about evidence pointing to prior knowledge by federal
agents of the Oklahoma City bombing and an Elohim City connection
reveal
only a portion of the evidence uncovered and reported by The New
American
years earlier. That evidence points not only to prior knowledge but to
multiple John Does, multiple bombs, and a Mideast connection.

To see the archive of articles published by The New American as part
of
its Oklahoma City bombing investigation, visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/okc/

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"...
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:48:53 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>,
"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
CC: <jlo@nichebuilders.com>, "Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>, <libnw@immosys.com>

Hello again Larry, everyone else!

Larry. I'm crossposting this message to Liberty Northwest. This is good.
Very good, in spire of your profanity and 'war against God'. I guess the
souls on Liberty Northwest are prepared for some of this, in fact, that this
is likely the best medium to post this stuff. It also fits in with much of
what I have previously written in this context with Iraq.

Larry Fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> ain't heard from ya. what the fuck??!!!

Going through a lot of enormous shit, Larry, such as US immigration and
such. I'm having less and less time for engaging right now on things I'd
find more satisfying. With my stock portfolio going into the shit can
because of the Shrub Regime's<tm> insanity over its "damn the world's
opinion", we're going to war whether the world is with us or not syndrome,
I'm trying to sort personal things out right now.

> am i too worthless to write to, or did i shut ya the fuck up??!!

Profanity not needed, Larry. I've got a lot on my mind lately that is
commanding a lot of my attention, including the condition of my house in
Naples after the burglary. I have to work within my priorities sometimes,
even thought these priorities aren't so pleasant to deal with.

> religion and faith is sick fucking crap, frank. get it through your head,
> or gimmie reason, not a bit of which i've seen yet!!!

I already addressed all of that earlier. You know that I did. Religion isn't
based upon reason. It is based upon faith. So, if you understood what I
wrote, why are you now asking for a reason? Again!

> fuck your gawd!! even if you have proof that "he" exists, i still claim
> he's a sick fuck, punishing us humans forever for "eating from the tree of
> knowledege". what a sick fuck your lutheran gawd is!!!

Now. Aren't you really special? You've already proved by your own
admission, you are on a vandetta against God for alowing humanity (which is
at war against God) to even exist! You are blaming God, even when you
acknowledge that the earth is filled with human sick fuckers that don't
deserve much of anything accept perhaps God's total iniliation! All of the
examples you have cited have shown that man is the sick fucker. Why should a
righteous God even allow such scum to exist any longer. Why not simply
destroy the entire human race, and without any further need to provide a way
for mankind to have any hope for reconciliation with righteousness? Every
empirical atrocity you cite, was performed by man, against other men. Yet
you blaim God for allowing such atrocious behaviour to continue.

> defend you claims, frank, or shut the fuck up!!, or maybe your silence is
> consession??!!

No concsessions Larry. Only I can't reasonably address your call for proof.
There is a lot of proof however that man is totally depraved and such nature
can never be reformed. All of recorded history has shown this to be the
case. When you listen to the drum beats of the "Shrub Regime"<tm>, which is
hell bent on going to war against almost the entire thrust of world opinion,
with massive human destruction on a scale perhaps never scene before in
human history, you have to ask just how far manking has risen in terms of
reforming his evil ways. Especially when we can't find one shred of hard
evidence to suggest that Iraq would be an enemy of America had we not
engaged in previous aggression.

Which is why I believe that libertarian idealism is not a final solution to
eternal realism. Libertarianism is not a religion to me, but only a
political philosophy -- nothing more. Political structures rise and fall, as
do entire civilizations.

One of the things you might be missing here however, are the geo-political
realities of why western civilization may indeed be poised to fall. Very few
people even consider this to be possible. Later, we may be faced with
addressing this issue. A good percentage of British citizens, according to
the latest polls, show that the US is a greater threat than is Iraq!
Americans too are starting to come around lately that what is happening is
not realistic, as we further distance ourselves from the rest of the planet
on our government's aggressive and hostile intentions.

The problem in all of this, is that we have lost our spiritual base.
Christianity hasn't been in vogue for several decades, at least since the
first world war. We have nothing left anymore to fight and die for, except
perhaps materialism (which, as I stated is rapidly declining as the stock
market's values plumet). Indeed, we are still relatively speaking,
prosperous, but even this suggests hypocrisy, since the rest of the planet's
"prosperity" is measured upon a much smaller scale (Roosevelt's "two cars
for every garage" thing). The only thing therefore we might fight for, is
materialism. Very few would probably accede that is worth dying for however.
Therein lies the issue. What really happens when the stock market
collapses, and economic depression sets in, and there is NOTHING left to
fight or die for?

About one-third of the planet is Islamic. And, it is growing. They don't
live in opulence for the most part, and the growing hordes of Islamic
civilizations are willing to fight and die for their religion, their
spiritual belief system, and values, and their 'god'. This has little to do
with wealth or materialism, and it is far much easier to destroy some
edifice than it was to build one (I am referring to present western
civilization and it's fixation on materialism and material wealth). Yes,
true, we have enormous technology, and sophisticated weapons systems. But
again, a determined enemy, willing to fight suicidally to the death for
their own beliefs, and destroy whatever technology has built, is much easier
that building that technological superiority.

One thing I've noticed in the last several weeks, is the division within
western civilization over this 'war against Iraq'. All of the arguments
suggest that most of western civilization doesn't want war because it is
based upon economic or material considerations, e.g.: the rise or fall of
the stock and equity markets etc. These are all prime targets for Islamic
fundamentalists, even those who do have wealth and power. All I am saying,
is that we are dealing with something here that we as a "western
civilization" probably aren't prepared to deal with. And raw power probably
won't be a decisive factor in the long run.

It wouldn't take all that much really, to totally destroy the economic
foundations of western civilization. Without any spiritual or religious
basis, such a civilization might be ripe for ultimate fall. As John Lennon
wrote: "nothing to live or die for... and no religion too". Other
civilizations, including Islam, has EVERYTHING to live and die for, and
their own religion too.

Kindest regards,
Frank
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"...
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:03:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Phyllis <adelaide31@yahoo.com>
To: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>, Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
CC: jlo@nichebuilders.com, Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>, libnw@immosys.com

Hello Frank, everyone:
I want to reply to portions of your message:

--- "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
wrote:
> Hello again Larry, everyone else!
>
> Going through a lot of enormous shit, Larry, such as US
> immigration and
> such. I'm having less and less time for engaging right
> now on things I'd
> find more satisfying.

I hope you get your problems straightened out - for the
sake of North Idaho Libertarians, as well as your own. They
could use your calming influence.

> snip <

> Every empirical atrocity you cite, was performed by man,
> against other men. Yet you blaim God for allowing such
>atrocious behaviour to continue.

I could be wrong, but as I interpret Larry's message, he
blames man's BELIEF in God - not God, since a non-existent
being cannot be responsible for any action.
>
> snip <

> No concsessions Larry. Only I can't reasonably address
> your call for proof.
> There is a lot of proof however that man is totally
> depraved and such nature
> can never be reformed.

Just as in the argument between theism and atheism, there
is a lot of proof on both sides, but neither side will
accept the proof of the other side. I submit that, in both
instances, the jury is still out.

> snip <

> One of the things you might be missing here however, are
> the geo-political
> realities of why western civilization may indeed be
> poised to fall. Very few
> people even consider this to be possible. Later, we may
> be faced with
> addressing this issue.

I Agree

> snip <

> The problem in all of this, is that we have lost our
> spiritual base.
> Christianity hasn't been in vogue for several decades, at
> least since the
> first world war. We have nothing left anymore to fight
> and die for, except
> perhaps materialism
> for every garage" thing). The only thing therefore we
> might fight for, is
> materialism.

I disagree

> snip <

> As John Lennon wrote: "nothing to live or die for... and
no > religion too".

Americans have LIBERTY to live or die for....and a
diversity of religions. Once we have earned freedom from
government oppression, we can all live together in peace,
despite the ravings of those few misguided individuals who
seek to impose Christianity or Atheism on the rest of us.
That is why I have joined the Free State Project
http://www.freestateproject.com , membership of which is
composed of a mixture of Christians, Pagans, Atheists and
who knows what other faiths - united by a passion for
freedom and the determination that government's maximal
role should be to defend individuals from force and fraud.

Phyllis

=====
When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not
concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and
therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the
industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then, Hitler attacked me and the
Protestant church and there was nobody left to be concerned. Pastor Martin
Niemoller

Freedom in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.com

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"...
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:08:28 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>,
"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
CC: <jlo@nichebuilders.com>, "Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>, <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings Larry!

Larry Fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> ps frank, since you've posted this private comunication to LNW, i figure
> you'll let me back in, until the subject has been played out?
> going now to seek permission.

I'll answer your post, which is certainly rather clear and one that I feel
is worthy of a response.

But YOU alone can subscribe to Liberty Northwest. It's automated, and no, I
won't ever unsubscribe you from Liberty Northwest. It is the most 'hard
skinned' libertarian discussion list on the entire planet, and those that
get kicked out usually have been those who disregard all decorum in
dinigrating others because of race, religion, or national origin. You, all
by yourself, unsubscribed yourself from Liberty Northwest. It wasn't I that
kicked you out. In fact, you seemed to be so disgusted with commentary in
adversarial content, that you left all by your self, on your own.

To resubscribe and enter the discussion on this thread there, all you have
to do is "click and send" the following:

mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

I'll answer the contents of your message here tomorrow, giving you time to
log on and respond accordingly.

By the way, I didn't know or misunderstood that this conversation was
necessarily "privage", only restricted from Idaho_Libs and
Idaho_Libertarians, as such. I could be wrong, but I thought, as I
understood you, that anything you wrote anywhere was for public consumption.
Please correct me if I misunderstood your intentions.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"...
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:30:51 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: "Phyllis" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>,
"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
CC: <jlo@nichebuilders.com>, "Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>, <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Phyllis!

Phyllis Schatz wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I hope you get your problems straightened out - for the
> sake of North Idaho Libertarians, as well as your own. They
> could use your calming influence.

I want to give Larry a day or two to plug in to Liberty Northwest again
before I answer this.

I will answer this post tomorrow accordingly.

But, for what it is worth, Liberty Northwest is not Idaho_Libs. So I still
believe this conversation should NOT be central on any discussions Idaho
libertarian discussion groups. It IS however, worthy commentary on Liberty
Northwest, which is a world-wide libertarian discussion platform.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"...
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:38:47 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>,
Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
CC: <jlo@nichebuilders.com>,
Phyllis Schatz <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

hi, frank,

response below:

on 2/16/03 7:08 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com
wrote:

> I could be wrong, but I thought, as I
> understood you, that anything you wrote anywhere was for public
consumption.
> Please correct me if I misunderstood your intentions.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank

i greatly embarass myself somtimes, but you are right. i claim no secrets.
and it's also true, i did resign from LNW, it just wasn't clear to me that i
could get back in, and i wasn't real sure how to sign on, anyway. you've
answered all of my questions.

still, i'm a bit trepidatious about a full-blown discussion of religion in a
libertarian group. i breach that trepidation myself at times, but i worry
about it. i just hope that a discussion 'tween you and i (and others?) on
the question does not run off *any* libertarian.

one other thing, you and i have both added names to this short list. i've
been concerned that we are spaming folks. since there is now going to be a
public forumn, i'm gonna respond only the the LNW list. i figure those who
are interested can go there, and those who are not will breathe relief.

sincerely,

larry




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: 15 Feb 2003 13:16:07 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 12:00, G Triest wrote:
> I am skeptical about alcohol and gasoline based fuel cell systems. The
> amount of energy lost in the conversion is very significant, kinda undoing
> the reason for using a fuel cell in the first place. Yes of course it is

Gary, I'd like to see some references for this being less than that of
hydrogen powered fuel cells. The data I have shows the efficiency of
hydrogen fuel cells in the 40-60% range, the same range as ethanol or
hydrated-ethanol fuel cells.

When taking into account the entire process, I'd assert that hydrogen
fuel cells are less efficient. What? you may say? Have you considered
the energy used in compressing and/or liquifying? Hydrogen leaks from
any and every container, so you must, IMO, account for losses too (since
they are guaranteed to occur).

Furthermore, the cost of *producing* hydrogen must be calculated (not
just in $$ but in energy). Electrolysis of water is about 60% efficient.
If you combine the 40-60% efficiency of PEM fuel cells, that gives you a
net efficiency of just 24-36%, even lower than engines running on
biodiesel. The current preferred method of H2 production --steam-- is
not much better.

Of course, then there is the cost (and energy expended) in building a
new national infrastructure for a hydrogen-based economy.

> better to have a solid-state electrical power producer, but it bothers me
to
> think of 30 -50 % of the available energy being lost in the conversion.
>
> I somewhat disagree about the disavailability of natural gas though. This
is
> a fuel with such an abundence on earth it is scary. Most of what we have
now
> comes from oil drilling, but think of all the methane hydrate deposits
that
> have been found at the bottom of the sea. There is more energy there than
> just about anywhere else on earth. We will not run out for a long time.
> Another source could be bacteria working on biological wastes and
cellulose
> (so there is your renewability!).

We have bacteria and processes to create crude from biomass, so if you
argue that one is renewable based on such technology, you'd have to
stipulate the other is as well. ;^) The cost (energy/$$) of extracting
and reforming ("sweetening") methane needs to be considered.

As far as the supply of NG, the availability lies in the economical
transportation, storage, and acquiring of it, not to mention Btu
comparisons with existing technologies. We have more oil in shale than
any other place, but that doesn't mean we can get to it and use it
efficiently and cheaply. Like H2, the density of NG is low, resulting in
the most effective uses being LNG (Liquified NG) and CNG (Compressed
NG). Both of these introduce additional costs in both an economic and
energetic sense. If memory serves, NG in its various forms has less
BTU/unit than does ethanol/gasohol/etholine, for example.

> And how can you say that carbon is a nonrenewable resource? All wood turns
> into carbon.
>
> I like the idea of a carbon based fuel cell; put your wood in and get heat
> and electricity out ;-)

Talk about horribly inefficient! ;^)

While I love to theorize as much as any scientist, where the "rubber
meets the road" is where we go in the future. Hydrogen is a pipe dream
at this time; even in fuel cells. The costs to make it (there is no
naturally occurring isolated H2 on Earth), the complexity and dangers in
storing and transporting it, and the high costs of vehicles and
electricity generating plants for it are too high. Japan has a few H2
fuel-cell powered vehicles, but at a cost of roughly 1-2 Million USD
each, I don't see many Americans buying them. With a range of under 200
miles at existing auto sizes, either vehicles will need to grow to
accommodate the ranges of highway trips in the west, or many new
stations will be needed. This is also true of CNG powered vehicles.

There is *no* transition plan that is anywhere near economically viable
for Hydrogen.

In contrast, the cost of converting a car/truck/suv to ethanol (E85
specifically) is $0-$1000. The cost of adapting the existing
infrastructure is less than a tenth of the cost of building even a
partial H2 infrastructure. Frank, the cost of ordering the E85 option to
2002 GM pickups was $269.

<sidebar>
[At that point, I'd be looking at Helium3 imported from the moon and
used in He3-deuterium reactors. About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the
United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption. To
put it in perspective: that's about the weight of a fully loaded
railroad box car, or a maximum Space Shuttle payload. Infeasible you
say? Not true. To assign an economic value, suppose we assume He3 would
replace the fuels the United States currently buys to generate
electricity. We still have all those power generating plants and
distribution network, so we can't use how much we pay for electricity.
As a replacement for that fuel, that 25-tonne load of He3 would worth on
the order of $75 billion today, or $3 billion per tonne. Launch costs to
retrieve a year's supply would run under $5 Million in the early phases,
and could easily be reduced to under $2 Million in the mid-phase with
specialization. That leaves over $70 Billion/year to run the mining
operation on the lunar surface. I assert that given a proven reactor and
a few billion dollars to produce the mining facilities, it would be
extremely lucrative early on. --so why have we not done it? Cheaper and
easier means exist for now, and the expense of testing the reactors due
tot eh high cost of He3 on Earth. ]
<sidebar>

Further, ethanol provides a transition from our current gasoline
industry to fuel cell vehicles (FCV) running on ethanol. An ethanol
powered FCV can run ~80 miles per gallon of ethanol. On existing tank
sizes (tanks that need no adaptation, I might add), that would give a
range of over 600 miles for the tiny cars, and over 1000 miles on the
average family car tank. And again, we already know that ethanol
production (not counting the usable byproducts of it when done from corn
biomass) results in a net gain of ~36% (IOW, for every unit in, we get
1.36 units out). if this seems impossible, remember that the Sun
provides a significant chunk of energy when growing the corn.

Indeed, the conversion to ethanol has already begun. Heck, there is at
least one company offering current "turn-key" ethanol plant construction
in under one year. it is a zero-discharge plant to boot.

Just because H2 has the highest BTU/unit of any known fuels does not
mean it is the best solution. The devil is in the details, they say; and
the details are enough to seriously undermine H2's effectiveness.

Endnote:
Chrysler has a minivan FCV, running on sodium boro-hydride, yet only
achieves 30MPG gasoline equivalent, and a range of 300 miles. No word on
cost/mile or increase in cost of the vehicle, or even the lack of
infrastructure to fuel the vehicle.

Bill
mmm tech. :^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The maximum national debt
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:16:40 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I had seen an analysis a few years back that was very revealing, yet no one
seems to recounts it or give it much concern.

It concerns the US National Debt.

Just off the top of my head and memory, I understand that the Gross National
Product of the US is about $13 trillion.
The US Government's income from all sources is about $1.1 trillion.
The National Debt is currently $6.409 trillion.
The interest payments on the debt amount to $131,381,620,996.45. This
represents a little over 10% of its income.
The the US Govt spends 1.5 trillion dollars a year; leaving a deficit of
about $300 billion.

If the Govt continues this trend, and it is more likely to accelerate than
stay the same, then in 56 years our interest payments will equal our income.
In fact since about half of the expenditures of the Govt is mandatory to
even minimally survive, this means in about 23 years the US Govt will be
worse than broke, it could not even pay its interest payments.

You can be sure that the repercussions of this time deadline will be felt
way before this occurs.
It says to me that we are careering into a national money meltdown. US
currency will not be worth the paper it is printed on.
Picture the DeutschMarks needed to buy loaf of bread circa 1920. A
wheelbarrel could do it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:00:08 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

For another view, (and some numbers--including some eye-popping ones from
the 40s) see:

http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-bowyer021303.asp

In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, the 2004 proposal is
12th-highest. As a percent of GDP, it ranks 21st. In war-time and in a
recession, it makes at least some sense. (And arguing about whether the
war is necessary is immaterial to this particular topic--the folks who want
to go to war are running things and so then the economic question is "what
do we do about it?)

The real question is whether the tax cuts this time will stimulate the
economy as they have in the past. If so, then the only trick is to grow
government at a lower rate than the economy. (From the article, compare
the 1983 to the 1992 deficits. The 1992 deficit was 318.9 B$s FY96 while
the 1983 deficit was 309.4. But as a percentage of the GDP, the 1992
deficit was 4.7% vs. 6% for 1983. Not only did some inflation take place,
but the economy grew as well. You can figure that in
non-inflation-adjusted dollars, the 1992 deficit was quite a bit bigger
than the 1983 deficit, but that the difference in the size of the economy
dwarfed that difference. Also compare 1984 to 2004: 263.4 vs. 257.2 B$s FY
96 and 4.8% vs. 2.9%.) Because of that growth in the economy (and because
Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress managed to grow the total size of
government less than the economy--mainly because defense spending actually
got cut) we actually had a few years of surpluses.

Of course, I would prefer that taxes shrink more and that government shrink
rather than grow. But that's simply not in the cards right now. At the
current time, this worrying over the deficit basically plays into the hands
of the socialists who want to keep government in control of every possible
dollar--or people who want to damage the US economy so they can get rid of
Bush. We didn't get where we are overnight and we won't get where we want
to go overnight either.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 18:16 02/16/03 -0500, you wrote:
>I had seen an analysis a few years back that was very revealing, yet no
>one seems to recounts it or give it much concern.
>
>It concerns the US National Debt.
>
>Just off the top of my head and memory, I understand that the Gross
>National Product of the US is about $13 trillion.
>The US Government's income from all sources is about $1.1 trillion.
>The National Debt is currently $6.409 trillion.
>The interest payments on the debt amount to $131,381,620,996.45. This
>represents a little over 10% of its income.
>The the US Govt spends 1.5 trillion dollars a year; leaving a deficit of
>about $300 billion.
>
>If the Govt continues this trend, and it is more likely to accelerate than
>stay the same, then in 56 years our interest payments will equal our
>income. In fact since about half of the expenditures of the Govt is
>mandatory to even minimally survive, this means in about 23 years the US
>Govt will be worse than broke, it could not even pay its interest payments.
>
>You can be sure that the repercussions of this time deadline will be felt
>way before this occurs.
>It says to me that we are careering into a national money meltdown. US
>currency will not be worth the paper it is printed on.
>Picture the DeutschMarks needed to buy loaf of bread circa 1920. A
>wheelbarrel could do it.
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: 16 Feb 2003 20:34:37 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 16:16, G Triest wrote:
> I had seen an analysis a few years back that was very revealing, yet
> no one seems to recounts it or give it much concern.
>
> It concerns the US National Debt.
>
> Just off the top of my head and memory, I understand that the Gross
> National Product of the US is about $13 trillion.

So what? My house mortgage is higher than my income. Is that somehow
bad? How about a useful comparison?

> The US Government's income from all sources is about $1.1 trillion.
> The National Debt is currently $6.409 trillion.

IN November 2000 is was 5.4 trillion. Which grew faster, GNP or FD?

> The interest payments on the debt amount to $131,381,620,996.45. This
> represents a little over 10% of its income.
> The the US Govt spends 1.5 trillion dollars a year; leaving a deficit
> of about $300 billion.

Would it not the more like 400 billion? 1.5 -1.1 = .4 ;^)

What was the growth rate of the economy during that time period? How do
they compare? What about the change in assets?

If you want to do an economic analysis, do an *economic* not a political
analysis.

> If the Govt continues this trend, and it is more likely to accelerate
> than stay the same, then in 56 years our interest payments will equal
> our income. In fact since about half of the expenditures of the Govt
> is mandatory to even minimally survive, this means in about 23 years
> the US Govt will be worse than broke, it could not even pay its
> interest payments.

False. The majority (2/3rds)of the "debt" is in the form of bonds and
other public debt, which we all know are very very low rate of return.
Furthermore, this debt the government can "roll over", by issuing new
binds to replace the old bonds. For details on that, see below.

> You can be sure that the repercussions of this time deadline will be
> felt way before this occurs.
> It says to me that we are careering into a national money meltdown. US

The "*Federal* Debt" is such a red herring. it is as Zubrin would call
it "A dragon that needs slaying". There has been no positive correlation
shown between increased Federal Debt (FD) and Interest rates, for
example. indeed, there appears to be a minimal *negative* correlation.
Meaning that as FD increases, IR decreases; it is a minor change though.

The question to ask is what is the debt-income ratio?, or what is the
growth of assets in relation to the growth of debt? *These* are the
questions that provide reasonable economic answers. Talking about debt
without talking about assets is misguided at best. What if I said I were
a million dollars in debt, would be horrified, or would you wonder what
my assets were? it makes a difference. If I were a million dollars in
debt but had 10 million dollars in assets, that is a far different
situation if I were a million dollars in debt and had half a million in
assets.

What if I double my debt but tripled my assets? What if I halved my debt
but cut my assets by 3/4s?

Another case of single-number-itis.

Oh, and think about what happens if the government "paid off' all of
it's debt. A lot more Socialism, my friends. To pay down its debt to us,
the government has to tax more money out of our paychecks (i.e.,
continue running surpluses) - so it can turn right around and use that
money buy our bonds back from us. It's a shell game we can't win. Why?
we all know damned well it won't cut the budget to get to surpluses.

Two thirds of the FD is "public debt" (PD), in other words the bonds. If
the Uncle Sam continues refusing to return any surplus to the taxpayers,
they'll soon have to use those surpluses to buy foreign debt, private
sector corporate bonds, and private sector equity. (Alan Greenspan
verified this in his testimony to Congress on Jan. 25, 2001.)

Think very, very hard about that. Done? now think about it again.

A few hundred billion dollars a year would easily make Uncle Sam the
chairman of the board in just about any private sector corporation in
America. In other words, the government would become a net lender TO the
public and owner OF the public, instead of a net borrower FROM the
public. Again, think very very hard about that. Do we want the
government in that situation?

I don't. Then again, I would not since I don't like socialism. When the
government is an owner of the means of production, that's socialism.
Let's reduce taxes and leave the debt where it is. Hell overall I'd
rather loan money to the government then have it taxed!

"Debt is dangerous only when assets are declining in value and income is
shrinking. During the 1980's, asset values grew far faster than debt."
--George Gilder

All told, as long as GDP growth outstrips debt growth, there is no
increase in debt burden. *Both* Keynesian and Supply-Siders know that.

Adam Smith tried to tell us two hundred years ago that a government
should invest. In his 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes
of the Wealth of Nations, he said it was a government's duty to provide
five basics: defense; justice; education; infrastructure; and a stable
currency.

After providing those, he said, it is then that a government should stay
out of the free market's way. (Some of us seem to have forgotten what he
said about these duties of government. According to Smith, laissez-faire
is only one side of the coin. The other side is the provision by
government of the five basics.)

Clearly, all five of Smith's imperatives are investments in the nation's
future - not consumption.

If the expenditures are investments in the five core areas, it is good,
otherwise, it is not. If the debt taken on to make the investment pays
off when the loan becomes due, it was good. Otherwise it was bad.

So, don't fixate on "the national debt" (which is really the *federal*
debt). Use sound economic policy to analyze the whole picture.

Cheers, time to go eat.

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:24:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 16:16, G Triest wrote:
> > I had seen an analysis a few years back that was
> very revealing, yet
> > no one seems to recounts it or give it much
> concern.
> >
> > It concerns the US National Debt.
> >
> > Just off the top of my head and memory, I
> understand that the Gross
> > National Product of the US is about $13 trillion.
>
> So what? My house mortgage is higher than my income.
> Is that somehow
> bad? How about a useful comparison?

What I've heard is that if your debt is greater than
or equal to your annual income you're effectively
bankrupt. I assumed that was what Gary was getting
at: If the GNP of the US is 13 trillion and the
federal government has a debt of 6 point something
trillion, in X number of years the government is going
to be bankrupt.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:56:50 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, bill,

i see you are still quite brusque in you communication others. one thing is
for sure, you'll never be appointed as a diplomat (nor will i).

on 2/16/03 7:34 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 16:16, G Triest wrote:
>> I had seen an analysis a few years back that was very revealing, yet
>> no one seems to recounts it or give it much concern.
>>
>> It concerns the US National Debt.
>>
>> Just off the top of my head and memory, I understand that the Gross
>> National Product of the US is about $13 trillion.
>
> So what? My house mortgage is higher than my income. Is that somehow
> bad? How about a useful comparison?

criminee, bill, you jumped the gun here. maybe you should have eaten dinner
first, eh? all g.t. did, to the above point, was identify that he was going
to be writing concerning the 'national debt' and to put a figure to GNP.
right or wrong about the argument that he was only just setting up, HE MADE
NO COMPARISONS!! NONE!, useful or otherwise. it seems to me you oughta
hear folks out before ya go with picking a fight.

>> The US Government's income from all sources is about $1.1 trillion.
>> The National Debt is currently $6.409 trillion.
>
> IN November 2000 is was 5.4 trillion. Which grew faster, GNP or FD?

here you are again, picking a fight, when all he has done is point out
statistics, and has yet not made the slightest of arguments. like i've
written before, you sure like to fight. at least let g.t. get to the
argument 'fore you start fighting with it.
>
>> The interest payments on the debt amount to $131,381,620,996.45. This
>> represents a little over 10% of its income.
>> The the US Govt spends 1.5 trillion dollars a year; leaving a deficit
>> of about $300 billion.
>
> Would it not the more like 400 billion? 1.5 -1.1 = .4 ;^)
>
> What was the growth rate of the economy during that time period? How do
> they compare? What about the change in assets?
>
> If you want to do an economic analysis, do an *economic* not a political
> analysis.

good gawd, billlll, he's done **no** analysis to this point, economic or
political! all he's done is point out statistics. christ, get off you
high, white horse! you don't have, as yet, the slightest idea what his
argument is going to be. he's presented **no** argument, or analysis, yet.
and already you've picked a fight, a couple of times, when not the slightest
of argument has been presented.

>> If the Govt continues this trend, and it is more likely to accelerate
>> than stay the same, then in 56 years our interest payments will equal
>> our income. In fact since about half of the expenditures of the Govt
>> is mandatory to even minimally survive, this means in about 23 years
>> the US Govt will be worse than broke, it could not even pay its
>> interest payments.

so, here's the argument, and finally i see it as ligit for you to respond.

> False. The majority (2/3rds)of the "debt" is in the form of bonds and
> other public debt, which we all know are very very low rate of return.

well, low as the might be, g.t. is concerned that "10%" of government income
goes to pay interest on debt. and he's concerned that it will go much, much
higher, as a % of income (from taxpayers, btw).

> Furthermore, this debt the government can "roll over", by issuing new
> bonds to replace the old bonds.

well, yeah, of course "they" can. they've been doing that for years.
what's you point? and "they" can go even further in debt, as they have for
years. but what the hell does "rolling over" have to do with interest
expense as a % of income? "interst expense" is g.t. concern. it may be
misplaced, but "rolling over" totally misses his argument, and thus, is
beside the point.

i'll tell ya this, i ain't too real happy about "10%" of my fed. taxes going
to do nothing but pay interest to bondholders (lots of japanese doing the
holding). and if that percent goes even higher, with rumsfield saying he
can fight wars on as many fronts as is necessary, i ain't gonna be very
damned happy if that % increases. i don't get much from the 'government' in
relation to the taxes i pay, but i don't get squat from the % that goes to
pay interest. truth is, i'm still paying interest on debt created to
finance the vietnma war. i'm real damned pissed about that!! and your
"roll it over" doesn't not help me at all, with the interest payment
concern.

>> You can be sure that the repercussions of this time deadline will be
>> felt way before this occurs.
>> It says to me that we are careering into a national money meltdown. US
>
> The "*Federal* Debt" is such a red herring.

bill, you remind me of my socialist economics professor when i was going to
ISU: "don't worry about the size of the national debt, we owe it to
ourselves", he said nearly every damnded day. well, there again, the
collective "we" raises it's ugly head, this time as "ourselves". thing is,
bill, i don't own any of that debt. all i do is pay interest on it to those
who do. there ain't no "ourselves" about it. as a taxpayer, forced by the
governmnet i "owe" the bondholders, not myself.

> it is as Zubrin would call it "A dragon that needs slaying".

uhh, bill, name dropper. who the hell is zubrin? did my ISU professor
change his name?

> There has been no positive correlation
> shown between increased Federal Debt (FD) and Interest rates, for
> example. indeed, there appears to be a minimal *negative* correlation.
> Meaning that as FD increases, IR decreases; it is a minor change though.

statistics can often lie, or obscure. think about it, bill. new FD is
financed in the capital markets. every damnded dollar which goes to buy a
new government bond is subtracted from the capital available to lend -
supply of capital drops, necessarily. interest rates are the price of
borrowing money, which equlibrates supply and demand. with capital diverted
to government, the supply falls, while demand remains the same. interest
rates **must** rise, to a point higher than they would **otherwise** have
been, to eqalibrate supply with demand. yeah, interest rates may not have
gone up, BUT IT'S FOR DAMNED SURE THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD
HAVE BEEN. think about it. and, as you wrote, think about it again.
>
> The question to ask is what is the debt-income ratio?

that's a damned important question for you and i to think about. but since
the state's income is taken from my hide, i have a helluva a lot more
important questions to think about than the state's "ratio". both debt, and
taxes divert resources to the state. given what it is doing, it has **far**
too many "resources".

> or what is the
> growth of assets in relation to the growth of debt? *These* are the
> questions that provide reasonable economic answers. Talking about debt
> without talking about assets is misguided at best. What if I said I were
> a million dollars in debt, would be horrified, or would you wonder what
> my assets were? it makes a difference. If I were a million dollars in
> debt but had 10 million dollars in assets, that is a far different
> situation if I were a million dollars in debt and had half a million in
> assets.

the assets for government are primarily tax payers. i'm damned tired of
being an asset for government, whatever the % if interest is.
>
> What if I double my debt but tripled my assets? What if I halved my debt
> but cut my assets by 3/4s?

bill, you are damned right here, unfortunately. debt is measured in "old
dollars", and assets are measured in "current dollars".

bill, the various states in history recognized your wisdom, long before you
were born. if you inflate the "currency" enough, and increase the dollar
denominated "value" of the assets, you can reduce your debt to a minscule %.
but inflating the currency, with a general rise in the dollar denominated
"value" of assests is just a hidden tax by governmnet. it gets to pay-off
the bondholders with dollars which a worth less (or is it **worthless**).
and all the shoppers pay the price, one way or another.

back in 1980, the government had to pay the bondholders 18% to rollover,
paying for the vietnam war as it was, and the price of gold shot up to
$850.00.

i have ***no*** sympaty for those who have bought government paper. i don't
want to pay down the debt, as a taxpayer. i just want to tell those folks
who were stupid enough to do so to "f" off. they trusted government. pay
the price, dummies!!! write off the debt!!
>
> Another case of single-number-itis.

you're much better at name-calling than i am bill.>

> Oh, and think about what happens if the government "paid off' all of
> it's debt.

fuck the "debt-owners". they were stupid!!!! hence i'm not real concerned
about the state paying down its debt. that ain't ***never*** going to
happen, anyway!!!!!! never, ever!! as with germany, we'll get
hyper-inflation long before that.

> A lot more Socialism, my friends. To pay down its debt to us,
> the government has to tax more money out of our paychecks (i.e.,
> continue running surpluses) - so it can turn right around and use that
> money buy our bonds back from us. It's a shell game we can't win. Why?
> we all know damned well it won't cut the budget to get to surpluses.

don't we, though!!!!!! so, you've wasted time discussing impossible
hypotheticals.
>
> Two thirds of the FD is "public debt" (PD), in other words the bonds. If
> the Uncle Sam continues refusing to return any surplus to the taxpayers,
> they'll soon have to use those surpluses to buy foreign debt, private
> sector corporate bonds, and private sector equity. (Alan Greenspan
> verified this in his testimony to Congress on Jan. 25, 2001.)

the ***accidental*** surplus was extermely fleeting. **quote allan
greenspan, today, eh?? about the FD!!!!!
>
> Think very, very hard about that. Done? now think about it again.

you're soooo gawd damned condescending, bill. i hope you noticed i used
your argument on you, above. how did it feel?
>
> A few hundred billion dollars a year would easily make Uncle Sam the
> chairman of the board in just about any private sector corporation in
> America. In other words, the government would become a net lender TO the
> public and owner OF the public, instead of a net borrower FROM the
> public. Again, think very very hard about that. Do we want the
> government in that situation?

and, here ya go again, bill, talking about how many angels could fit on the
head of a pin, as if the government is ***ever*** gonna pay down the "debt
to dummies".
>
> I don't. Then again, I would not since I don't like socialism. When the
> government is an owner of the means of production, that's socialism.

well, bill, you and i go back a long way in relation to socialism and
fascism. even if, in the fiction you have generated, the state were to pay
down its debt, and start buying corporations with surpluses - THAT WOULD NOT
BE SOCIALISM!!! socialism is throughly discredited in the minds of humans,
given it obvious failure. YOU'RE FIGHTING THE LAST WAR, BILL, AND YOU COME
ACROSS AS A JONH BIRCHER, DOING IT. NEARLY EVERYONE BUT YOU AND CASTRO ARE
LAUGHING ABOUT SOCIALISM, THESE DAYS. and they can't see fascism with their
eyes wide open!!!!

> Let's reduce taxes and leave the debt where it is. Hell overall I'd
> rather loan money to the government then have it taxed!

loan money to the government?? rotflmao!!!! i hope you get ripped off
bigtime, and you will, gurantee ya!!!

truth is, bill, i agree with you on the above, **bigtime**, if it were a
case of leaving the ND where it is. but that ain't gonna happen, with wars
on many fronts to fight.

the ND is a credit card for the state. and it is an addict!!!

>
> All told, as long as GDP growth outstrips debt growth, there is no
> increase in debt burden. *Both* Keynesian and Supply-Siders know that.

ain't the disguised tax of inflation ssooo nice, and every once in awhile an
economic recovery which outruns the ability of the state to tax it.
>
> Adam Smith tried to tell us two hundred years ago that a government
> should invest. In his 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes
> of the Wealth of Nations, he said it was a government's duty to provide
> five basics: defense; justice; education; infrastructure; and a stable
> currency.

WELL, BILL, AS YOU KNOW, EVERY ONE OF THOSE "LEGITMATE CLAIMS" HAVE BEEN
ABRIDGED!!!!!, ESPECIALLY EDUCATION, JUSTICE, AND A STABLE CURRENCY. AND
I'M NOT SEEING MUCH TO DO WITH DEFENSE, IN RELATION TO U.S. FORIEGN POLICY.
>
> After providing those, he said, it is then that a government should stay
> out of the free market's way. (Some of us seem to have forgotten what he
> said about these duties of government. According to Smith, laissez-faire
> is only one side of the coin. The other side is the provision by
> government of the five basics.)

WELL, ADAM SMITH WAS A REAL SMART GUY, BUT I FIGURE IF HE WERE AROUND TODAY
HE'D BE AN ANTI-WAR PROTESTER, AND WOULD HAVE JOINED UP WITH MILTON FRIEDMAN
TO END THE STATE'S MONOPOLY ON EDUCATION, NOT TO MENTION THE "JUSTICE" OF
THE DRUG WAR, AND ON AND ON.

"DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT", YOU SAY, BILL!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> Clearly, all five of Smith's imperatives are investments in the nation's
> future - not consumption.

INVESTMENT, EH? GOOD GAWD, I THOUGHT YOU CLAIMED TO BE A LIBERTARIAN??

I HEARD "INVESTMENT" FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS "EDUCATION"
MONOPOLY AT THE JFAC HEARINGS. WHY THE "F" DO I HAVE TO READ SQUAT LIKE
THAT ON A LIBERTARIAN LIST??!!, FROM YOU!!

let's "invest in the space station", eh. and invest in oblitering all
plants from columbia.
>
> If the expenditures are investments in the five core areas, it is good,
> otherwise, it is not. If the debt taken on to make the investment pays
> off when the loan becomes due, it was good. Otherwise it was bad.
>
> So, don't fixate on "the national debt" (which is really the *federal*
> debt). Use sound economic policy to analyze the whole picture.

OKAY, BILL, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO YOUR ABOVE PARAGRAPH. BUT I JUST RAN OUT
OF STEAM.

I WISH YOU'D EATEN BEFORE YOU WROTE YOUR BULLSHIT, IN HASTE.
>
> Cheers, time to go eat.
>
> Bill

CHEERS, MY ASS,

LF
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:54:00 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote in small part:

> well, low as the might be, g.t. is concerned that "10%" of government
income
> goes to pay interest on debt. and he's concerned that it will go
much, much
> higher, as a % of income (from taxpayers, btw).

The higher the percentage of gov't income goes to pay interest, the
better I like it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:49:33 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> What I've heard is that if your debt is greater than
> or equal to your annual income you're effectively
> bankrupt.

That's definitely not true.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: 17 Feb 2003 09:43:14 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 01:56, larry fullmer wrote:
> hi, bill,
>
> i see you are still quite brusque in you communication others. one thing
is
> for sure, you'll never be appointed as a diplomat (nor will i).

Nor do I care to be. Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" while
trying to find a big stick. :)

If you don't like my manner of communication and want to beat around the
bush first, feel free to not respond. BTW, in the spirit of not being
diplomatic with you (which never works anyway) I'm probably only
responding to you on this this time. It goes too quickly in to name
calling and yelling on your part, and "practicing what I preach" I won't
respond to that.

> on 2/16/03 7:34 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 16:16, G Triest wrote:
> >> I had seen an analysis a few years back that was very revealing, yet
> >> no one seems to recounts it or give it much concern.
> >>
> >> It concerns the US National Debt.
> >>
> >> Just off the top of my head and memory, I understand that the Gross
> >> National Product of the US is about $13 trillion.
> >
> > So what? My house mortgage is higher than my income. Is that somehow
> > bad? How about a useful comparison?
>
> criminee, bill, you jumped the gun here. maybe you should have eaten
dinner
> first, eh? all g.t. did, to the above point, was identify that he was
going
> to be writing concerning the 'national debt' and to put a figure to GNP.
> right or wrong about the argument that he was only just setting up, HE
MADE
> NO COMPARISONS!! NONE!, useful or otherwise. it seems to me you oughta
> hear folks out before ya go with picking a fight.

I read the whole past and then respond. Maybe you shouldn't be so
"condescending" as you like to say others are. I place responses where
they go so you can follow it logically. Something you appear to do as
well.

> >> The US Government's income from all sources is about $1.1 trillion.
> >> The National Debt is currently $6.409 trillion.
> >
> > IN November 2000 is was 5.4 trillion. Which grew faster, GNP or FD?
>
> here you are again, picking a fight, when all he has done is point out

Anything you disagree with you call picking a fight. It's always a fight
with you.

> >
> >> The interest payments on the debt amount to $131,381,620,996.45. This
> >> represents a little over 10% of its income.
> >> The the US Govt spends 1.5 trillion dollars a year; leaving a deficit
> >> of about $300 billion.
> >
> > Would it not the more like 400 billion? 1.5 -1.1 = .4 ;^)
> >
> > What was the growth rate of the economy during that time period? How do
> > they compare? What about the change in assets?
> >
> > If you want to do an economic analysis, do an *economic* not a political
> > analysis.
>
> good gawd, billlll, he's done **no** analysis to this point, economic or
> political! all he's done is point out statistics. christ, get off you
> high, white horse! you don't have, as yet, the slightest idea what his
> argument is going to be. he's presented **no** argument, or analysis,
yet.

Yes I do, I read the whole post first. And, the post started out with
mentioning an economic analysis that Gary felt is too often ignored. I
do believe Gary is smart enough to know that my response was to
argument/analysis he referred to, and not him personally.

> and already you've picked a fight, a couple of times, when not the
slightest
> of argument has been presented.

Actually, what was posted constitutes a analysis. Had it just been a raw
post of data, then your claim may have weight to it. As it is, it's just
you "picking a fight".

Fortunately, Gary doesn't think like you do, and most likely did not
assume this to be a personal thing with him. Given the history of his
posts, Gary doesn't seem believe everything posted that disagrees is a
fight. You however, are a different story.

>
> >> If the Govt continues this trend, and it is more likely to accelerate
> >> than stay the same, then in 56 years our interest payments will equal
> >> our income. In fact since about half of the expenditures of the Govt
> >> is mandatory to even minimally survive, this means in about 23 years
> >> the US Govt will be worse than broke, it could not even pay its
> >> interest payments.
>
> so, here's the argument, and finally i see it as ligit for you to respond.

How gracious of you.

> > False. The majority (2/3rds)of the "debt" is in the form of bonds and
> > other public debt, which we all know are very very low rate of return.
>
> well, low as the might be, g.t. is concerned that "10%" of government
income
> goes to pay interest on debt. and he's concerned that it will go much,
much
> higher, as a % of income (from taxpayers, btw).

Without evidence to support it (hint: I've seen the evidence and it
doesn't support the "fear" or so-called "concern"), it is nothing more
than fear. Kind of like "global warming".

> > Furthermore, this debt the government can "roll over", by issuing new
> > bonds to replace the old bonds.
>
> well, yeah, of course "they" can. they've been doing that for years.
> what's you point? and "they" can go even further in debt, as they have
for
> years. but what the hell does "rolling over" have to do with interest
> expense as a % of income? "interst expense" is g.t. concern. it may be
> misplaced, but "rolling over" totally misses his argument, and thus, is
> beside the point.

It isn't all about interest expense, Larry if you had "read the whole
post" first maybe you would understand that. Focusing on ONE thing out
of a large series of data is irresponsible and useless. Now, what does
it have to do with interest expense? Creditors. the US borrows money
from the Federal Reserve Bank, or from the public through bonds, etc..
The latter is far more "expensive" than the former. If it were to roll
over debt as opposed to borrowing from the fed, the total interest
decreases.

> i'll tell ya this, i ain't too real happy about "10%" of my fed. taxes
going
> to do nothing but pay interest to bondholders (lots of japanese doing the
> holding). and if that percent goes even higher, with rumsfield saying he

Ahh, perhaps a bit of "racism" there, claiming the Japanese are who the
govt is beholden to, Larry? Fact of the matter is, you are wrong.

> can fight wars on as many fronts as is necessary, i ain't gonna be very
> damned happy if that % increases. i don't get much from the 'government'
in
> relation to the taxes i pay, but i don't get squat from the % that goes to
> pay interest. truth is, i'm still paying interest on debt created to
> finance the vietnma war. i'm real damned pissed about that!! and your
> "roll it over" doesn't not help me at all, with the interest payment
> concern.

Well, in my "bluntness" Larry, I'll say that that is because you don;t
understand the economics behind it. As I mentioned above, if the
government used bonds, etc. more, as opposed to more borrowing from the
Federal Reserve Bank, that percentage could/would decrease. But by
focusing on the number of the debt as opposed to the makeup and
economics behind it, it will not.

> >> You can be sure that the repercussions of this time deadline will be
> >> felt way before this occurs.
> >> It says to me that we are careering into a national money meltdown. US
> >
> > The "*Federal* Debt" is such a red herring.
>
> bill, you remind me of my socialist economics professor when i was going
to
> ISU: "don't worry about the size of the national debt, we owe it to
> ourselves", he said nearly every damnded day. well, there again, the
> collective "we" raises it's ugly head, this time as "ourselves". thing
is,
> bill, i don't own any of that debt. all i do is pay interest on it to
those
> who do. there ain't no "ourselves" about it. as a taxpayer, forced by
the
> governmnet i "owe" the bondholders, not myself.

Making an argument before hearing it, eh larry? So, you don't have any
money in retirement accounts, etc? Sad to hear that. Fact is most
retirement plans from companies, most investment funds, etc., include
federal bonds, primarily to mitigate risk. More people rely on bonds
than they realize.

> > it is as Zubrin would call it "A dragon that needs slaying".
>
> uhh, bill, name dropper. who the hell is zubrin? did my ISU professor
> change his name?

Not likely, he's probably passed on ... that was what a century ago, you
old codger you? ;)

It isn't "name dropping" unless you expect it to have any impact on the
reader. I don't expect anyone here to know Zubrin. I'm merely giving him
the credit he deserves for the phrase. You got a problem with that?

> > There has been no positive correlation
> > shown between increased Federal Debt (FD) and Interest rates, for
> > example. indeed, there appears to be a minimal *negative* correlation.
> > Meaning that as FD increases, IR decreases; it is a minor change though.
>
> statistics can often lie, or obscure. think about it, bill. new FD is

Statistics *can* be used to misrepresent things, yes. But does that mean
they always do? Nope.

> financed in the capital markets. every damnded dollar which goes to buy a
> new government bond is subtracted from the capital available to lend -
> supply of capital drops, necessarily. interest rates are the price of
> borrowing money, which equlibrates supply and demand. with capital
diverted
> to government, the supply falls, while demand remains the same. interest
> rates **must** rise, to a point higher than they would **otherwise** have
> been, to eqalibrate supply with demand. yeah, interest rates may not have
> gone up, BUT IT'S FOR DAMNED SURE THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THEY OTHERWISE
WOULD
> HAVE BEEN. think about it. and, as you wrote, think about it again.

Then you have proof that as the FD rose, so did interest rates? If not,
your claim it does is without merit. Oh wait, you wouldn't let the facts
get in the way of your argument would you larry? I used to believe like
you did, until I learned the reality and history regarding the FD.

Indeed, one thing (of many) missing from your scenario is that bonds are
most often used as security for larger loans to grow capital. It;s kind
of comical for you to write that IR *MUST* rise, and then admit they
didn't. Of course, you switch to "they'd be lower!" argument w/o any
evidence to support it.

> >
> > The question to ask is what is the debt-income ratio?
>
> that's a damned important question for you and i to think about. but
since
> the state's income is taken from my hide, i have a helluva a lot more
> important questions to think about than the state's "ratio". both debt,
and
> taxes divert resources to the state. given what it is doing, it has
**far**
> too many "resources".

So then you won't think about the question you agree is important to
think about?

> > or what is the
> > growth of assets in relation to the growth of debt? *These* are the
> > questions that provide reasonable economic answers. Talking about debt
> > without talking about assets is misguided at best. What if I said I were
> > a million dollars in debt, would be horrified, or would you wonder what
> > my assets were? it makes a difference. If I were a million dollars in
> > debt but had 10 million dollars in assets, that is a far different
> > situation if I were a million dollars in debt and had half a million in
> > assets.
>
> the assets for government are primarily tax payers. i'm damned tired of
> being an asset for government, whatever the % if interest is.

Wrong. The primary assets of the government are the buildings, the land,
the equipment, etc.. Many of the assets or results of investment are
intangibles.

> > What if I double my debt but tripled my assets? What if I halved my debt
> > but cut my assets by 3/4s?
>
> bill, you are damned right here, unfortunately. debt is measured in "old
> dollars", and assets are measured in "current dollars".

No, larry it is not. There are well known economic processes for
comparing dollar amounts in equal terms. This is what is done.

> bill, the various states in history recognized your wisdom, long before
you
> were born. if you inflate the "currency" enough, and increase the dollar
> denominated "value" of the assets, you can reduce your debt to a minscule
%.
> but inflating the currency, with a general rise in the dollar denominated
> "value" of assests is just a hidden tax by governmnet. it gets to pay-off
> the bondholders with dollars which a worth less (or is it **worthless**).
> and all the shoppers pay the price, one way or another.

Yes, that is why in order to "pay down" the FD, it *must* run "budget
surpluses". Which means raising taxes and/or lowering expenditures. If
it continues to do so, it winds up purchasing parts of the economy
through "investments". That's socialism; government owning means of
production. Just as the current school system is socialist. Something
you refuse to acknowledge.

> back in 1980, the government had to pay the bondholders 18% to rollover,
> paying for the vietnam war as it was, and the price of gold shot up to
> $850.00.

Between 1980 and 1990 the assets nearly tripled. Growth outstripped debt
rise by large margins, resulting in a lower debt load.

> i have ***no*** sympaty for those who have bought government paper. i
don't
> want to pay down the debt, as a taxpayer. i just want to tell those folks
> who were stupid enough to do so to "f" off. they trusted government. pay
> the price, dummies!!! write off the debt!!

So you want the government to declare bankruptcy? That would only
exacerbate the problem.

> >
> > Another case of single-number-itis.
>
> you're much better at name-calling than i am bill.>

Single-number-itis is the focus on a single number to make a political
point. In nearly all cases, the full picture reveals the opposite of the
portrayal.

For example, I could post the debt growth of a large company in the US.
the chart would show a year over year increase, with the 10 year debt
difference being staggering. base don that, I could say this company is
poised on bankruptcy, and in the throes of death. I'd be wrong, since
it's assets and income has increased far beyond it's debt growth (thus
reducing the debt load). That company is in fact growing very well and
is very very successful. That company is Wal-Mart.

> > Oh, and think about what happens if the government "paid off' all of
> > it's debt.
>
> fuck the "debt-owners". they were stupid!!!! hence i'm not real
concerned
> about the state paying down its debt. that ain't ***never*** going to
> happen, anyway!!!!!! never, ever!! as with germany, we'll get
> hyper-inflation long before that.

Actually, it was attempted in the late 1990's, with a resulting decrease
in GDP/GNP growth as was predicted.

> > A lot more Socialism, my friends. To pay down its debt to us,
> > the government has to tax more money out of our paychecks (i.e.,
> > continue running surpluses) - so it can turn right around and use that
> > money buy our bonds back from us. It's a shell game we can't win. Why?
> > we all know damned well it won't cut the budget to get to surpluses.
>
> don't we, though!!!!!! so, you've wasted time discussing impossible
> hypotheticals.

Nope. besides, I fully accept that discussions on national policy on
this list are academic. Unfortunately people seem to think to highly of
this list and themselves to acknowledge that most of the time. If I
wasted my time, did you "throw good time after bad"?

> > Two thirds of the FD is "public debt" (PD), in other words the bonds. If
> > the Uncle Sam continues refusing to return any surplus to the taxpayers,
> > they'll soon have to use those surpluses to buy foreign debt, private
> > sector corporate bonds, and private sector equity. (Alan Greenspan
> > verified this in his testimony to Congress on Jan. 25, 2001.)
>
> the ***accidental*** surplus was extermely fleeting. **quote allan
> greenspan, today, eh?? about the FD!!!!!

Nope, no quotes there. just a resource for you to go look at if you were
truly interested in learning the realities behind the situation. And
yes, when Greenspan is an *appropriate* authority, I refer to his
statements. Then again, I'm not so biased as to think I'm the only one
with the answers, or that anyone working for government is a fascist,
or that someone disagreeing with me is "picking a fight".

> > Think very, very hard about that. Done? now think about it again.
>
> you're soooo gawd damned condescending, bill. i hope you noticed i used
> your argument on you, above. how did it feel?

Where, I don't see it? I see a request to think, nothing wrong with
that, is there? Is thinking a bad thing for you? If so, fine I won't
bother you by asking you to think. Unfortunately, most people don't
*think* about these things, they assume based on what they were told.

Besides, if you use my arguments (with an understanding of them) that is
fine, that feels pretty good actually. However, if you go around
slinging insults and cursing at people, that's a different story.

> > A few hundred billion dollars a year would easily make Uncle Sam the
> > chairman of the board in just about any private sector corporation in
> > America. In other words, the government would become a net lender TO the
> > public and owner OF the public, instead of a net borrower FROM the
> > public. Again, think very very hard about that. Do we want the
> > government in that situation?
>
> and, here ya go again, bill, talking about how many angels could fit on
the
> head of a pin, as if the government is ***ever*** gonna pay down the "debt
> to dummies".

If it becomes politically motivated (AGAIN) to do so, it will. Look at
history. Hell look at Idaho's current governor (just don't get too close
you'll need to wash the slime off!). He wants to raise taxes AND take
much of it to "save" by investing it. In the mid and late 1990's the
congress was big time into the politics of debt mongering and was
yakking about taking the "surplus" and paying off the "national debt".
Recent history stands in counter to your claim of never gonna happen.

> >
> > I don't. Then again, I would not since I don't like socialism. When the
> > government is an owner of the means of production, that's socialism.
>
> well, bill, you and i go back a long way in relation to socialism and
> fascism. even if, in the fiction you have generated, the state were to
pay
> down its debt, and start buying corporations with surpluses - THAT WOULD
NOT
> BE SOCIALISM!!! socialism is throughly discredited in the minds of
humans,
> given it obvious failure. YOU'RE FIGHTING THE LAST WAR, BILL, AND YOU
COME

I fit is so discredited how come we have so much of it? How come our
schools are socialist? How about our medicine being socialized a step at
a time? How about the government controlling more and more of the
professions through mandatory government licensing? If it is so
discredited and unlikely as you claim, why is it so prevalent?

> ACROSS AS A JONH BIRCHER, DOING IT. NEARLY EVERYONE BUT YOU AND CASTRO
ARE
> LAUGHING ABOUT SOCIALISM, THESE DAYS. and they can't see fascism with
their
> eyes wide open!!!!

Next thing you know you'll tell us that bubonic plague and small pox are
not worth thinking about since we "eradicated" them. Or malaria. Truth
is socialism is still going strong, perhaps stronger than ever in
today's America. But if you have the blinders of arrogance ("it was
discredited") you'll not see it.

> > Let's reduce taxes and leave the debt where it is. Hell overall I'd
> > rather loan money to the government then have it taxed!
>
> loan money to the government?? rotflmao!!!! i hope you get ripped off
> bigtime, and you will, gurantee ya!!!

I said I'd *rather*. Funny thing is, your "guarantee" does not show with
history. The government bonds are low because they are certain. The US
has *always* paid them off as promised. If the government failed to do
so, it's "credit" would be worse and the rates would *have* to be higher
in order for it to do it.

Bonds are better than taxation, IMO. At least bonds are optional. If the
government issued bonds for specific things, people could choose what to
support. If nobody, for example, (or not enough) purchased bonds for
welfare (*cough*socialism*cough*), and the government could not pull
from taxes to make up the difference, we'd have less spent there.

It would be a way for modern liberals to put *their* money where their
mouth is. Let Baldwin, etc. put their money in lesser-performing bonds
with a shorter maturity time frame.

> truth is, bill, i agree with you on the above, **bigtime**, if it were a
> case of leaving the ND where it is. but that ain't gonna happen, with
wars
> on many fronts to fight.

Probably not,. Then again, if the *ration* remains the same, or
improves, we'll be better than trying to "pay it off" or "pay it down".

>
> the ND is a credit card for the state. and it is an addict!!!

No, I'd say the spending is the addiction. Just as the drug addict is
not addicted to stealing to fund his/her habit.

> > All told, as long as GDP growth outstrips debt growth, there is no
> > increase in debt burden. *Both* Keynesian and Supply-Siders know that.
>
> ain't the disguised tax of inflation ssooo nice, and every once in awhile
an
> economic recovery which outruns the ability of the state to tax it.

What are you trying to say? that sentence made no sense. Inflation is
not a tax, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

> >
> > Adam Smith tried to tell us two hundred years ago that a government
> > should invest. In his 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes
> > of the Wealth of Nations, he said it was a government's duty to provide
> > five basics: defense; justice; education; infrastructure; and a stable
> > currency.
>
> WELL, BILL, AS YOU KNOW, EVERY ONE OF THOSE "LEGITMATE CLAIMS" HAVE BEEN
> ABRIDGED!!!!!, ESPECIALLY EDUCATION, JUSTICE, AND A STABLE CURRENCY. AND
> I'M NOT SEEING MUCH TO DO WITH DEFENSE, IN RELATION TO U.S. FORIEGN
POLICY.

What, are you finally acknowledging that there is socialism in
education, perhaps even in "justice"? The defense thing is a matter of
opinion.

> > After providing those, he said, it is then that a government should stay
> > out of the free market's way. (Some of us seem to have forgotten what he
> > said about these duties of government. According to Smith, laissez-faire
> > is only one side of the coin. The other side is the provision by
> > government of the five basics.)
>
> WELL, ADAM SMITH WAS A REAL SMART GUY, BUT I FIGURE IF HE WERE AROUND
TODAY
> HE'D BE AN ANTI-WAR PROTESTER, AND WOULD HAVE JOINED UP WITH MILTON
FRIEDMAN
> TO END THE STATE'S MONOPOLY ON EDUCATION, NOT TO MENTION THE "JUSTICE" OF
> THE DRUG WAR, AND ON AND ON.

I figure they'd do their own thing and not try to say what he would do.
That's ascribing our own beliefs and prejudices to them.

> "DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT", YOU SAY, BILL!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
> >
> > Clearly, all five of Smith's imperatives are investments in the nation's
> > future - not consumption.
>
> INVESTMENT, EH? GOOD GAWD, I THOUGHT YOU CLAIMED TO BE A LIBERTARIAN??
>
> I HEARD "INVESTMENT" FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS
"EDUCATION"
> MONOPOLY AT THE JFAC HEARINGS. WHY THE "F" DO I HAVE TO READ SQUAT LIKE
> THAT ON A LIBERTARIAN LIST??!!, FROM YOU!!

Because not all libertarians are ignorant of reality and economics. If I
teach my son things, I'm making an investment. If the government pays a
soldier to stand guard, that is an investment in my security. Debt is
the wrong enemy. We should be concerned with bad investments.

> let's "invest in the space station", eh. and invest in oblitering all
> plants from columbia.

No, let us get NASA cut down, and *not* "invest" in a space station. The
government has no business doing so beyond strategic causes. Indeed,
Mars is better, and cheaper than a space station, it *would* be an
investment though it should be done by the private sector. NASA is about
fancy projects that spend boat loads of money, not about true
exploration. NASA is the reason we do not have a private space station,
or a mars colony, etc.. NASA is a bad investment.

> > If the expenditures are investments in the five core areas, it is good,
> > otherwise, it is not. If the debt taken on to make the investment pays
> > off when the loan becomes due, it was good. Otherwise it was bad.
> >
> > So, don't fixate on "the national debt" (which is really the *federal*
> > debt). Use sound economic policy to analyze the whole picture.
>
> OKAY, BILL, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO YOUR ABOVE PARAGRAPH. BUT I JUST RAN
OUT
> OF STEAM.

Good. you were getting into angry-larry-spewing-crap mode.

> >
> > Cheers, time to go eat.
> >
> > Bill
>
> CHEERS, MY ASS,

Nope, I don't toast to a guy's ass. Now, a good looking woman's perhaps.
;^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The maximum national debt
Date: 17 Feb 2003 12:10:29 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 08:49, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>
> > What I've heard is that if your debt is greater than
> > or equal to your annual income you're effectively
> > bankrupt.
>
> That's definitely not true.

Hear hear.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Why I'm glad I didn't vote for Harry Browne last time.
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:00:36 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I quite admired Harry Browne, at first. But his latest, "What Can I Do
about the War" (at www.truthaboutwar.org/hb2.shtml) confirms what I sort of
suspected but never was quite ready to believe. He's so set on some things
that he becomes incoherent.

In it, I find this gem of a sentence: "More and more people are coming to
believe that it makes no sense to risk the lives of our young people and
risk the safety of our cities by going to war against a country that can't
hurt us." Hunh? Are we going to war against a "country that can't hurt
us" or against a country that poses a "risk" to "the safety of our
cities"? Which is it? It can't be both!

Let's see, he could argue that Iraq is dangerous, but if we leave it alone,
it will leave us alone. I might disagree with that argument, but it would
be a coherent argument. However, that's not the argument that Harry is
making because he says it is a "country that can't hurt us."

The most charitable explanation is that he is saying that it will be other
Muslim terrorists making common cause with Iraq that will pose the
danger. So, the "danger to our cities" is that we will sustain more
terrorist attacks that we would if we left Iraq alone? That if we leave
Iraq alone, then Iraq and Syria and Egypt and Libya (and who knows who
else) is going to make sure they keep close track of their WMD so that it
doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Or that the ones that don't have it
won't build it? And that if, say Syria, is afraid it is about to be
attacked by Iraq, they might not make it appear that a WMD attack against
the US was directed by Iraq? Or is Harry attempting to skate past the
issue of what happened on 9/11 and the anthrax letters that
followed. Those attacks occurred without us invading Iraq as we are
planning to do. And while we were easily able to identify the 9/11
attackers and some of their associates, we still don't know where the
anthrax came from. To say that Iraq would not be able to carry out a
similar attack on the US with plausible deniability through terrorist
proxies is madness. And to say that Saddam Hussein couldn't convince
himself that it was possible is even more insane.

The fact is that the only real alternative to changing these regimes is to
turn the US into a police-state. We need to completely control
immigration, our borders, our ports and we need some extreme police powers
to make sure that something doesn't get built (or grown) here by agents
from some other country. I didn't go looking through the web site much,
but I haven't seen much more out of Harry on this issue than the same
argument that comes from the anti-gun nuts, basically: "Don't do that, and
no, I don't have a credible alternative."

I realize that Harry Browne thinks that we can live in a
"live-and-let-live" world if we just pull all our troops home. We would be
able to do so if all the other countries with WMD capabilities were run as
representative democracies. Unfortunately, that isn't the case and
eventually, we will have to face a tyrant who is more concerned with
self-aggrandizement and power than with who gets hurt.

So Harry, you say that war should be a "last resort". That's a fine
sentiment. But when does it get applied? Do we apply it when the cost is
relatively small and victory is quite certain, or do we wait until as
Churchill put it, "all hope of victory is lost and then you fight anyway
because it is better to die than to live as a slave."?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:55:06 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:47:55 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in small part:

> If it is so discredited how come we have so much of it? How come our
> schools are socialist? How about our medicine being socialized a step
at
> a time? How about the government controlling more and more of the
> professions through mandatory government licensing? If it is so
> discredited and unlikely as you claim, why is it so prevalent?

Socialism is discredited. Compared to a century ago, very few promote
socialISM in that they think it a good system per se. All the
statization above is promoted mostly by people not as part of a grand
scheme or -ism, but on a case-by-case basis. The schools are socialist
because that's been the status quo for a long time, and it's hard to
change that tradition -- conservatism is socialism there. Medicine is
increasingly socialized in the USA because of an adverse positive
feedback loop of reforms & technology. Licensure is increasing largely
as part of the general trend to "credentialism", although there are
other factors. Ideology is not decisive in these trends.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:17:52 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, robert,

comment below.

on 2/17/03 9:47 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in small part:
>
>> If it is so discredited how come we have so much of it? How come our
>> schools are socialist? How about our medicine being socialized a step
> at
>> a time? How about the government controlling more and more of the
>> professions through mandatory government licensing? If it is so
>> discredited and unlikely as you claim, why is it so prevalent?
>
> Socialism is discredited. Compared to a century ago, very few promote
> socialISM in that they think it a good system per se. All the
> statization above is promoted mostly by people not as part of a grand
> scheme or -ism, but on a case-by-case basis. The schools are socialist
> because that's been the status quo for a long time, and it's hard to
> change that tradition -- conservatism is socialism there. Medicine is
> increasingly socialized in the USA because of an adverse positive
> feedback loop of reforms & technology. Licensure is increasing largely
> as part of the general trend to "credentialism", although there are
> other factors. Ideology is not decisive in these trends.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert

you're right, robert, and that was one of two points i'd like to carry to
bill. since the fall of the soviet union, and the eastern bloc there is
hardly a humanon the planet with the balls to argue for socialism or
communism, 'cept for that throw-back, castro.

now in private discussion amoungst libertarians i have not much trouble with
equateing socialism and fascism. but, criminee, if we start talking to
others claiming socialism is the enemy, they're gonna think we're bonkers, i
figure, unless they're old time john birchers.

nearly every damned body thinks socialism is dead, and it is if we're
talking about nationalizing industry, aboloshing private property, in the
name of "socialist, cooperative farming, et al. those *were* defininging
charachteristics of socialism/communism, and no one is calling for such
today.

i'll agree with bill, though, in relation to the state's near monoploy on
"education". the state *has* effectively nationalize that 'industry'. but
that was a long time ago. still, it's true, it approximates the "socialist"
system. that's the only instance i can think of though, and if we go
calling government educators "socialist", i figure we're gonna get laughed
of the stage, whether or not the claim is true. we have no need for that
decrept word, as i see it.

so, robert, second point, to you and bill, in relation to your claim that
medicine in american is becoming increasingly socialized. there has been no
nationalizing of hospitals, and doctors do not get there pay checks from the
state. and i figure that ain't gonna happen any time soon, with nobody
calling for full-blown "socialism"

and, yet, the system is sunk in edicts from the state - rules and
regulations, and throwing lots of money around, and, as you mentioned,
liscensing requiremts, for everybody who calls themselves a health=care
professional. and there are reams of paperwork for patients, too, with more
rules and regulations. on,on and on.

now, robert, bill, i want to argue, hoping that you can see it, that is
exactly what hitler and mousellini did. they didn't nationalize squat.
they just formed alliances, and issued rules and regulations. "everybody
still though they were 'free', right? they weren't directly working for the
government, and no property had been nationalized.

there's a name for that approach, the approach the u.s. government has taken
in nearly every instance: it's called fascism.

let's start calling it what it is, eh. that's the accurate thing to do, and
if nothing else, that's gonna screw up folk's perception of us as radical
right-wing john-birch types. the left still secretly loves socialism, but
are too embarassed to say so. and they hate fascism, as right-wing evil.
now, let me ask you, where the hell are they gonna file us, if we start
talking about fascism.

i don't want to be filed too easily by anyone, especially when, as i see it,
fascism is truly the evil we face.

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:37:26 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> asked:

> now, robert, bill, i want to argue, hoping that you can see it, that
is
> exactly what hitler and mousellini did. they didn't nationalize
squat.
> they just formed alliances, and issued rules and regulations.
"everybody
> still though they were 'free', right? they weren't directly working
for the
> government, and no property had been nationalized.

> there's a name for that approach, the approach the u.s. government has
taken
> in nearly every instance: it's called fascism.

> let's start calling it what it is, eh. that's the accurate thing to
do, and
> if nothing else, that's gonna screw up folk's perception of us as
radical
> right-wing john-birch types. the left still secretly loves socialism,
but
> are too embarassed to say so. and they hate fascism, as right-wing
evil.
> now, let me ask you, where the hell are they gonna file us, if we
start
> talking about fascism.

As nuts as if we were warning about socialism. AFAICT, people are
convinced "fascist" means "mean".

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:55:59 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi robert, others,

on 2/18/03 5:37 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

snipping myself:

>> now, let me ask you, where the hell are they gonna file us, if we
>> start talking about fascism.
>
> As nuts as if we were warning about socialism. AFAICT, people are
> convinced "fascist" means "mean".

robert, point well taken. whether we settle on socialism or fascism to
define the "enemy", it does us no damned good to stand on the street corner
and shout it to passerbys.

there are contexts, though, in which it is approprpriate to use the
descriptive terms, even in relation to thinking about the problems liberty
lovers are faced with.

i'm just arguing that fascism is a much more accurate term, and it is very
useful, tactically, as well.

i forgot, last night, to mention homeland security and the partriot act as
deserving of the "fascist" descriptive. calling such "socialism" does not
resonate - with me or others, i figure.

and given your definition of fascism: "mean", i figure that BULLSHIT
diserves it. it's damned "mean" as i see it, especially since "homeland"
was a **favorite** word of the nazis.

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: 19 Feb 2003 05:20:41 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 01:55, larry fullmer wrote:
...
> >> now, let me ask you, where the hell are they gonna file us, if we
> >> start talking about fascism.
> >
> > As nuts as if we were warning about socialism. AFAICT, people are
> > convinced "fascist" means "mean".
>
> robert, point well taken. whether we settle on socialism or fascism to
> define the "enemy", it does us no damned good to stand on the street
corner
> and shout it to passerbys.
>
> there are contexts, though, in which it is approprpriate to use the
> descriptive terms, even in relation to thinking about the problems liberty
> lovers are faced with.
>
> i'm just arguing that fascism is a much more accurate term, and it is very
> useful, tactically, as well.

Except of course, where it is inaccurate.

> i forgot, last night, to mention homeland security and the partriot act as
> deserving of the "fascist" descriptive. calling such "socialism" does not
> resonate - with me or others, i figure.

Another strawman, Larry. To my knowledge *nobody* has called the Patriot
act socialistic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:57:35 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:

> i'm just arguing that fascism is a much more accurate term, and it is
very
> useful, tactically, as well.

I forgot what you were applying it to. Was it occupational licensure?
I'd say that's more closely related to medieval guilds than to fascism.
Fascists tend to want to organize by industry rather than by profession.

If you count all the varieties of programs labeled fascist by their
promoters or by neutral observers of the time, that covers a lot of
ground; similarly for socialism. Many people label national socialism
as a type of fascism, while others distinguish fascism from Nazism, and
its name includes the word "socialist". So I don't know what's to be
gained by all this labeling.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: socialism now (was The maximum national debt)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:18:26 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> If you count all the varieties of programs labeled fascist by their
> promoters or by neutral observers of the time, that covers a lot of
> ground; similarly for socialism. Many people label national socialism
> as a type of fascism, while others distinguish fascism from Nazism, and
> its name includes the word "socialist". So I don't know what's to be
> gained by all this labeling.

Correct, both socialists and fascists employ many of the same
components, the most obvious of which is to grow government both in
size and scope of power. But it is also instructive to see and know
the difference.

Socialism has likely been on the decrease in much of Europe,
particularly as a result of the emerging Euro Zone, since a lot of
state industries either have been, or are in the process of being
privatized. But that doesn't mean privatizing will get government out
of the economic process. It likely means that with privatization,
government intervention in the private sector will increase. This is
fascism, since it entails a greater degree of government management in
the overall economic order, particularly when it becomes national
policy to effect a social direction.

One MIGHT be able to make the case that China is becoming both less
socialist and less fascist in nature (although it still has a hell of
a long way to go in that direction) since its privatization efforts
are genuine for the most part, and the government has decentralized
much of its former control in economic terms. China is also about the
only economy on earth showing double digit economic gains, even in a
world that is largely in stagnation.

One economic analyst recently made the case that even if the entire
global economic order goes into a tail spin and deep recession, China
will largely be unaffected, since MOST of China's economic growth is
internal and is least affected by the outcome of what happens
externally.

Don't get me wrong. The Chinese government still has a long way to go
before anyone could suggest that individual political, religious or
social liberty will take root anytime soon. But with a rapidly growing
affluence in personal economic liberty, that too will eventually
change, or perhaps even become irrelevant. Technology and information
has probably in many cases marginalized government in personal terms,
unless that is, you find yourself coming under the scrutiny of the
Chinese government.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Bush's dictatorship
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:03:10 -0800 (PST)
From: dean germeten <germeten@thaipost.com>
To: <Individual-Sovereignty@yahoogroups.com>,
<LeftLibertarian@yahoogroups.com>, <libertarian@yahoogroups.com>,
<LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>,
<thelibertarianclub@yahoogroups.com>, <LNCSouthEast@yahoogroups.com>,
<LP7@yahoogroups.com>, <pinkpistols-ne@yahoogroups.com>,
<lpa-activists@yahoogroups.com>, <lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com>,
<libertarians-announce@listserv.arizona.edu>, <announce@ca.lp.org>,
<LPC@dehnbase.org>, <ca-firearms@yahoogroups.com>,
<ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>, <ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com>,
<NorCalLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>, <eblp@yahoogroups.com>,
<sac-LPS@yahoogroups.com>, <sbclp@yahoogroups.com>,
<LPSM-Discuss@yahoogroups.com>, <LPSC@dehnbase.org>,
<lpvc@yahoogroups.com>, <lpct-activist@lpct.org>,
<libertarians-dc@yahoogroups.com>, <announce@lpidaho.org>,
<Idaho_Libs@yahoogroups.com>, <liberty-in-illinois@topica.com>,
<uiuc-libertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<PinkPistols-Chicago@yahoogroups.com>, <LPI-Chicago@yahoogroups.com>,
<LPI-DuPage@yahoogroups.com>,
<IndianaLibertarianDiscuss@yahoogroups.com>, <LPIA@fusiondot.com>,
<libertyky@yahoogroups.com>, <LouisianaLibertians@yahoogroups.com>,
<MA-LIBERTY@yahoogroups.com>, <milibs4peace@yahoogroups.com>,
<minnlib-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, <molp@yahoogroups.com>,
<announce@lpnevada.org>, <UNLV_Libertarian@yahoogroups.com>,
<nhlibertarians@yahoogroups.com>, <liberty-talk@njlp.org>,
<lpnm-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, <lpny_activists@yahoogroups.com>,
<lpny_li@yahoogroups.com>, <announce@lpo.org>,
<ldl@listserv.kent.edu>, <mulibs@listserv.muohio.edu>,
<Oregon_Libertarian_Dialogue@yahoogroups.com>,
<PALibernet@yahoogroups.com>, <Free_RI@yahoogroups.com>,
<hclp@topica.com>, <LPWS-Activists@yahoogroups.com>,
<LPSeattle@yahoogroups.com>, <lpwi@yahoogroups.com>,
<LPMetroMilwaukee@yahoogroups.com>, <LPMetroDane@yahoogroups.com>,
<wyolp@zayda.net>, <libertarian-ca@yahoogroups.com>,
<UW-Libertarian-Announce@yahoogroups.com>,
<libertarian-qc@yahoogroups.com>, <@sitemail.everyone.net

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_watson_011303_king.html
http://www.infowars.com/print_patriotact2_analysis.htm
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/dreaded.html
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/notwarhead.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_newsom_011303_democracy.html
http://www.infowars.com/videos.html#takeover

_____________________________________________________________
Domain Registration & Hosting
http://www.thaipost.com

_____________________________________________________________
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com w/No
Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [ KEEP MARY STARRETT ON THE RADIO - SIGN THE PETITION !!!]
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:56:16 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: bradl@kpdq.com, blesliepadl@kpdq.com, dennish@kpdq.com,
andyw@kpdq.com, donp@kpdq.com


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CPOP] KEEP MARY STARRETT ON THE RADIO - SIGN THE PETITION !!!
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:14:35 -0800
From: <avoice@mtangel.net>
Reply-To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
To: "A Voice For Children" <avoice@mtangel.net>

HELP KEEP MARY STARETT RADIO SHOW ON THE AIR Please sign, circulate and
return this petition ! Mary Starrett helps get information to the People in
Oregon that the media wont print .... it is vital to keep the voices open on
the radio, things are changing rapidly and the People need to know....
getting the word out is critical !! We appreciate this show. Please get
this petition to some friends and send it back to the address below, to tell
the Radio Producers you want Mary Starrett to continue reaching the
people. Also, please read Mary's new column on NewsWithViews "Going Going
Gone! Why fewer choices for radio listeners equal a threat to your
liberty"http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett.htm -----Original
Message-----
From: howard a asinoff <newhopetherapy@juno.com>
To: avoice@mtangel.net <avoice@mtangel.net>
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: Mary Starrett
Dear A Voice for Children,
Please circulate this amongst your e-group
Thank you!
~~~~~~~Dear Fellow Truth Lover,
Attached is a petition showing our support for another radio station willing
to carry a Mary Starrett radio show. Please print out as many copies of it
as you can use. They may also be photocopied. Please be kind and inform
others who may not have heard or who do not have a computer. Send the signed
petitions to:Howard Asinoff
11735 SE Market St.
Portland, OR 97216

For those of you that have asked; the corporate office contact for KPDQ is:
Mr. Gaines, VP of Operations @ 805-987-0400

To Prospective Sponsors of a Mary Starrett radio show:

We the Undersigned People of the greater Portland area find a lack
of representation in the mass media and do find in Mary Starrett a
voice that uniquely amplifies our own.In as much as she represents
our views as well as providing us a forum unlike any other, we the
undersigned do pledge our faithful support of those businesses
that sponsor a Mary Starrett radio show.

Please Print Clearly

Name

Address

Phone

Signature

1.______________________________________________________________________

2.______________________________________________________________________

3.______________________________________________________________________

4.______________________________________________________________________

5.______________________________________________________________________

6.______________________________________________________________________

7.______________________________________________________________________

8.______________________________________________________________________

9.______________________________________________________________________

10._____________________________________________________________________


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Text Version-HELP KEEP MARY STARRETT RADIO SHOW ON THE AIR
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:00:08 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>
CC: bradl@kpdq.com, blesliepadl@kpdq.com, dennish@kpdq.com,
andyw@kpdq.com, donp@kpdq.com

HELP KEEP MARY STARRETT RADIO SHOW ON THE AIR

Please sign, circulate and return this petition ! Mary Starrett helps
get information to the People in Oregon that the media wont print ....
it is vital to keep the voices open on the radio, things are changing
rapidly and the People need to know.... getting the word out is
critical !!

We appreciate this show. Please get this petition to some friends and
send it back to the address below, to tell the Radio Producers you want
Mary Starrett to continue reaching the people.

Also, please read Mary's new column on NewsWithViews

"Going Going Gone! Why fewer choices for radio listeners equal a threat
to your liberty" http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett.htm

-----Original Message----- From: howard a asinoff To:
avoice@mtangel.net Date: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:42 PM Subject:
Mary Starrett

Dear A Voice for Children, Please circulate this amongst your e-group
Thank you! ~~~~~~~ Dear Fellow Truth Lover, Attached is a petition
showing our support for another radio station willing to carry a Mary
Starrett radio show. Please print out as many copies of it as you can
use. They may also be photocopied. Please be kind and inform others
who may not have heard or who do not have a computer. Send the signed
petitions to: Howard Asinoff 11735 SE Market St. Portland, OR 97216

For those of you that have asked; the corporate office contact for KPDQ
is: Mr. Gaines, VP of Operations @ 805-987-0400

To Prospective Sponsors of a Mary Starrett radio show:

We the Undersigned People of the greater Portland area find a lack of
representation in the mass media and do find in Mary Starrett a voice
that uniquely amplifies our own. In as much as she represents our views
as well as providing us a forum unlike any other, we the undersigned do
pledge our faithful support of those businesses that sponsor a Mary
Starrett radio show.

Please Print Clearly

Name

Address

Phone

Signature

1.______________________________________________________________________

2.______________________________________________________________________

3.______________________________________________________________________

4.______________________________________________________________________

5.______________________________________________________________________

6.______________________________________________________________________

7.______________________________________________________________________

8.______________________________________________________________________

9.______________________________________________________________________

10._____________________________________________________________________

--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Prohibition Editorial
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:05:34 -0700
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <freeidaho@citlink.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph A. Rohner III
To: libnw
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:59 AM
Subject: Prohibition Editorial

Dear friends,

How about a quick short Letter to Editor in support of my Reader's View,
Idaho Statesman, February 17, 2003. The email address to send letters is:

editorial@idahostatesman.com Include Name, Address, and Daytime phone for
confirmation.

The editorial is located at the link below in case you haven't seen the
Statesman today.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=33210

This is another opportunity for "relatively" FREE publicity. You folks who
are out-of-towners are especially important to show wide support. Carpe
Diem.

Best Regards, Joe

JAR III
Fine Homes & Recreational Properties
Accredited Buyer Agent
www.idahojoe.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Second Amendment
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:37:32 -0700
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <freeidaho@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

For those who have not read this and for those who have and need a reminder.
Ron

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan,
right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would
be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you
wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los
Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton
Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost
expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me
to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the
University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and
Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's
expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades
before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at
USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the
professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly
magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam
Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's
fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in
continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of
the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent
the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in
English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

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

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted
entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since
your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding
the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you
make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind
with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support,
if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment,
then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task
with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is
vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.
While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance
of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for
his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our
opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political
subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have
inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your
letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed
by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The
'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a
militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear
arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by
others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to
a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted
by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a
preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that
such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is
assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved
inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact,
necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not
existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to
keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence
of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the
right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia
as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear
arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place
conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such
right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as
previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the
militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,'
'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior
authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control
over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the
changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200
years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the
intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the
meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
amendment..
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia
is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also
appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second
Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the
words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people
to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for
example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the
amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his
cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative
efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach
any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what
many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally
protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all
governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the
Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that
part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the
old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed
officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States
ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely.
American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms
of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements
regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an
abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms,
guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the
rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to
preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our
elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding
them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who
decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but
means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution
of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that
promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational
reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author,
The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other
rights reserved.

About the Author:

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony
Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight
Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK
assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing,
the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal
computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to
keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those
afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore,
24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address: PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:53:54 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Ronald G Wittig" <freeidaho@citlink.net> kindly posted:

> The Unabridged Second Amendment
> by J. Neil Schulman

including these references that neatly date it:

> As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government
in the
> Soviet Union has failed,

> J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless
Bookstore,
> 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address: PO Box 94,
Long
> Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV

Wonder if I can still dial in...nah, won't bother trying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:23:04 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com, "M.O.M." <militia@montana.com>

Greetings again Ron!

Ronald G Wittig forwarded The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil
Schulman, which stated, in part...

> It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear
> arms to
> preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg
> our
> elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue
> regarding
> them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges
> who
> decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means
> but
> means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
> Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the
> Constitution
> of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will
> defend that
> promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

I believe this sums up entirely the matter concerning all such
inalienable rights, which rightly the people themselves must defend,
or else lose them. I may question slightly the author's statement
regarding the ACLU's propensity to defend all of our constitutional
rights, excepting the 2nd Amendment, but otherwise, this is a stellar
article and it should be further distributed to a wider audience.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:13:58 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in part:

> I believe this sums up entirely the matter concerning all such
> inalienable rights, which rightly the people themselves must defend,
> or else lose them.

So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:53:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in part:
>
> > I believe this sums up entirely the matter
> concerning all such
> > inalienable rights, which rightly the people
> themselves must defend,
> > or else lose them.
>
> So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

Morally they are inalienable, but legally they are
not.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:23:48 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > I believe this sums up entirely the matter concerning all such
> > inalienable rights, which rightly the people themselves must defend,
> > or else lose them.

You replied:
> So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

Not at all. I didn't say that. Such rights are morally and inherently
inalienable. The only corollary to this is that the immorality of
government aggression might deny the exercise of such rights. The gist
of which (as the article suggested), people must exercise and defend
such rights in the face of such aggression, or else lose the ability
to exercise them.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:37:40 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle Eilers wrote to Robert Goodman on inalienable rights...

Robert Goodman wrote:
> > So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

Michelle replied:
> Morally they are inalienable, but legally they are
> not.

Boy, you can say in a nutshell what takes me paragraphs to try and get
across!

I agree. Inalienable rights do not depend upon government, or whether
governments recognize or grant them. In the later case they don't, as
the Declaration of Independence so eloquently states. They simply
exist in nature and throughout human history. This certainly does not
exclude the fact that government can, and often does, assert
tremendous power to deny the exercise of such rights.

I enjoyed reading the article posted on the Second Amendment, and hope
others read it as well. The key issue here is the clear rendering of
of the words of the Constitution, which is supposed to be the highest
law of the land. The conversations taking place in the article
suggested that the use of language concerning the Second Amendment was
qualitative and convincing that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms could not be infringed, even absent a militia, that is
whether an organized militia existed or not. This was even clarified
that the right existed and is assumed by government of an inalienable
quality and therefore of natural pre-existence, and that government
would NEVER immorally infringe upon such a right. Even judges are
assumed to be under the obligation of recognize such rights and have
no jurisdiction over them.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:53:52 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > I believe this sums up entirely the matter
> > concerning all such
> > > inalienable rights, which rightly the people
> > themselves must defend,
> > > or else lose them.

> > So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

> Morally they are inalienable, but legally they are
> not.

Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:39:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe this sums up entirely the matter
> > > concerning all such
> > > > inalienable rights, which rightly the people
> > > themselves must defend,
> > > > or else lose them.
>
> > > So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.
>
> > Morally they are inalienable, but legally they are
> > not.
>
> Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate them?

Meaning it's immoral to infringe on a person's
"natural rights" whether those rights are legally
recognized or not.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:56:45 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle Eilers wrote to Robert Goodman....

You previously wrote:
> > > Morally they are inalienable, but legally they are
> > > not.

Robert responded, twisting words to suit his fancy as usual:
> > Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate them?

You replied:
> Meaning it's immoral to infringe on a person's
> "natural rights" whether those rights are legally
> recognized or not.

I have no idea how anyone, including Robert, could possibly
misconstrue your reply -- but my guess is that he obviously will.
Sorry. Your reply was absolutely brilliant, and so I have nothing more
to add. Again, great job!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:42:30 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Robert responded, twisting words to suit his fancy as usual:
> > Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate them?

Never mind the words of Robert. We have bigger fish to fry.

I have now located on the web irrefutable evidence
that Nasa faked the moon landings.

Check it out
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~g-b-dix/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

Regards
Tim

Racing the Night
Gideon: It feels like the city is watching us
but, of course, that's not possible

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:18:42 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > I believe this sums up entirely the matter
> > > > concerning all such
> > > > > inalienable rights, which rightly the people
> > > > themselves must defend,
> > > > > or else lose them.

> > > > So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

> > > Morally they are inalienable, but legally they are
> > > not.

> > Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate them?

> Meaning it's immoral to infringe on a person's
> "natural rights" whether those rights are legally
> recognized or not.

Would I be correct to say that a "moral right" is a right allowed
someone by someone else's morals, and that that's what you mean by a
"natural right"? So then what does the "inalienable" mean, and do you
agree with Frank that "rightly the people" must either defend or lose
them? What difference would it mean to say that someone has an
inalienable moral right rather than simply a moral right? Can you give
an example of an alienable moral right?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:05:07 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote:

> > > I believe this sums up entirely the matter concerning all such
> > > inalienable rights, which rightly the people themselves must
defend,
> > > or else lose them.

> > So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.

> Not at all. I didn't say that. Such rights are morally and inherently
> inalienable.

Then apparently they can't be alienated, but they can be lost. So
what's the difference between alienation and loss? What exactly is
alienation in this context?

AFAIK, alienability of a property or quality is the ability of the
person in whom it inheres to get rid of it. So to say a right is
inalienable is to say that even the person having such a right is not
allowed to get rid of it. That what you mean?

> The only corollary to this is that the immorality of
> government aggression might deny the exercise of such rights. The gist
> of which (as the article suggested), people must exercise and defend
> such rights in the face of such aggression, or else lose the ability
> to exercise them.

Is that what you meant above? That people have inalienable rights, but
must exercise & defend them or they become unexercisable, although still
inalienable and extant, rights?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:46:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

--- Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net> wrote:
> Greetings again Michelle!
>
> Michelle Eilers wrote to Robert Goodman....
>
> You previously wrote:
> > > > Morally they are inalienable, but legally they
> are
> > > > not.
>
> Robert responded, twisting words to suit his fancy
> as usual:
> > > Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate
> them?
>
> You replied:
> > Meaning it's immoral to infringe on a person's
> > "natural rights" whether those rights are legally
> > recognized or not.
>
> I have no idea how anyone, including Robert, could
> possibly
> misconstrue your reply -- but my guess is that he
> obviously will.
> Sorry. Your reply was absolutely brilliant, and so I
> have nothing more
> to add. Again, great job!

Thank you. :)

As you guessed, Robert did miscontrue my reply.
Surprise, surprise. ;) Unfortunately, I almost wasted
time answering his silly questions - even though I
know trying to talk to Robert is virtually pointless.
But since you have pointed out that my original answer
was sufficiently clear, I shan't waste any more
bandwidth responding to Robert.

Best wishes,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Invite: Darklady's Mad as a Hatter Post-Valentine's Day Mardi Gras Carnival
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:39:10 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Are these of interest, or should I stop forwarding Darklady event anmts?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;@bestweb.net>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Invite: Darklady's Mad as a Hatter Post-Valentine's Day Mardi
Gras Carnival

> Darklady's Mad as a Hatter Post-Valentine's Day Mardi Gras Carnival
>
> Saturday, March 1, 2003
> 6:00 pm - 2:00 am
> Portland, OR
>
> RSVP required
> Costumes and/or headdresses/hats strongly encouraged
> Fantastic prizes will be awarded
>
> Body Painting by Blossom - $5 and up
> Be bold and earn fabulous carnival beads
> Edible Costume Contest ala Iron Chef judging
> Bad Ass Cupid & the Red Queen available to help you make a love
connection
> Tunes spun by DJ Furious Bee & Powered by Atari
>
> Ages 21 and over, please
> $10 suggested donation
> Potluck
> Full kitchen
> Cloakroom
> Copious main floor play & socializing space
> Basement conversation & dining space
> Fully wheelchair accessible
>
> Photo galleries featuring NW photographers: Brad Wallis
> (www.bradwallis.com), Edward Taylor, David Rolin, Robert Allen York, &
Matt
> Schneider (www.ms-photo.com)
> Special guest: Los Angeles' photographer and foot fetishist Collin Rae
> (www.collinrae.us)
>
> Want to perform? Want to display your art or photography?
> Want to sponsor a party or donate products?
> Contact Darklady for details: Darklady@darklady.com
>
> -- Darklady
> http://www.darklady.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: michelle - Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:39:36 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, michelle,

response below:

on 2/17/03 11:10 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 08:49, Robert Goodman wrote:
>> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>>
>>> What I've heard is that if your debt is greater than
>>> or equal to your annual income you're effectively
>>> bankrupt.
>>
>> That's definitely not true.
>
> Hear hear.

i've heard such guidelines berfore, from bankers and such. whatever the
guidelines are, and yours could very well be one of them, i believe the
intention is to exclude long-term debt, especially such as a house.

they're only guidelines, though - though bankers do use them in relation to
making home loans and such.

if you have an invention that you think will make millions, even though you
are nearly pennieless, you can go in debt as far as you can find someone to
loan you money. betting on the 'come'.

as i said, there are many "guidelines". ben franklin abhored debt, as a
millstone, with his "a penny saved is a penny earned". i figure he would
freak with pessimism at all of the suvs, and motorhomes, and other luxury
consumer goods which have been bought on credit. the thingo is, what if bad
times come, as they have already come for many. the debt to income
guidlines get thrown all out of whack for those who get downsized to
Mcdonalds. and that "out-of-whack" thing is something that can easily
snowball throughout the entire economy.

i figure franklin would be particularily distressed at the state's debt, on
any account. but back then the u.s. did not have a central bank, with a
monoopoly on printing money.

i figure there is not much short term concern with the state going bankrupt,
whatever its debt level - not as long as they own the money printing
presses.

it will come, someday,though, as it did in the weimar republic, which
preceded fascist germany, with its true bankruptcy - when ink and paper
exceeds the value of the money, even if it's only printed one one side.
and even if it's a fifty-million mark note (i have one of those, btw).

the weimar republic was faced with very heavy war reparations, but that's
not what sunk em. it was the unfunded liability of their social-security
system. looking 10-years out, i read greenspan is real damned concerned
about that, himself.

anyway,

larry


>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: michelle - Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:34:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Larry,

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> hi, michelle,
>
> response below:
>
> on 2/17/03 11:10 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 08:49, Robert Goodman wrote:
> >> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in
> part:
> >>
> >>> What I've heard is that if your debt is greater
> than
> >>> or equal to your annual income you're
> effectively
> >>> bankrupt.
> >>
> >> That's definitely not true.
> >
> > Hear hear.
>
> i've heard such guidelines berfore, from bankers and
> such. whatever the
> guidelines are, and yours could very well be one of
> them, i believe the
> intention is to exclude long-term debt, especially
> such as a house.

The person I heard that from was a financial advisor
and the statement was made in the context specifically
of credit card debt. I'm not positive how "good debt"
- like student loans and house mortgages fit into the
equation - but I don't think they necessarily follow
the same rule of "if your debt exceeds your annual
income you're effectively bankrupt."

I know, for instance, that my student loan debt is
more than my annual income (though they may end up
about equivalent by the end of this year), but I'm not
in any danger of bankruptcy since the interest rate is
so extremely low. I have no trouble making my loan
payments - which are enough to actually pay down the
debt - and I still have enough money to live on.

I've never bought a house, so I know next to nothing
about house mortgages. I do know, however, that banks
frequently lend people more money to buy a house than
the people can afford to make monthly payments on.
(My cousin was in this situation and had to foreclose
on her house.) So even though going into debt for a
house is usually "good debt," it's not always good
debt if the house is too expensive for a person's
income.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: michelle - Re: The maximum national debt
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:00:20 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

so, michelle,

i'll do a goodman, and an anderson on ya. read below.

on 2/17/03 11:34 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>> hi, michelle,
>>
>> response below:
>>
>> on 2/17/03 11:10 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 08:49, Robert Goodman wrote:
>>>> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> part:
>>>>
>>>>> What I've heard is that if your debt is greater
>> than
>>>>> or equal to your annual income you're
>> effectively
>>>>> bankrupt.
>>>>
>>>> That's definitely not true.
>>>
>>> Hear hear.
>>
>> i've heard such guidelines berfore, from bankers and
>> such. whatever the
>> guidelines are, and yours could very well be one of
>> them, i believe the
>> intention is to exclude long-term debt, especially
>> such as a house.
>
> The person I heard that from was a financial advisor
> and the statement was made in the context specifically
> of credit card debt. I'm not positive how "good debt"
> - like student loans and house mortgages fit into the
> equation - but I don't think they necessarily follow
> the same rule of "if your debt exceeds your annual
> income you're effectively bankrupt."
>
> I know, for instance, that my student loan debt is
> more than my annual income (though they may end up
> about equivalent by the end of this year), but I'm not
> in any danger of bankruptcy since the interest rate is
> so extremely low. I have no trouble making my loan
> payments - which are enough to actually pay down the
> debt - and I still have enough money to live on.
>
> I've never bought a house, so I know next to nothing
> about house mortgages. I do know, however, that banks
> frequently lend people more money to buy a house than
> the people can afford to make monthly payments on.
> (My cousin was in this situation and had to foreclose
> on her house.) So even though going into debt for a
> house is usually "good debt," it's not always good
> debt if the house is too expensive for a person's
> income.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers

yup!! (i'm trying to follow goodman and bill with real damned short
responses!!).

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:55:19 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, bill, gary,

with time short, and me being sick, just gonna intersper a few off-the-top
of the head commenys. if that not fair, please let me know.

well, gary, as i wrote earlier, the state ain't gonna go bottom up, as long
at it controls the money printing presses - except for when folks will no
longer accept it's money, prefering to have a chicken, instead, or a pack of
smokes, or a bit of gold.

>>>> If the Govt continues this trend, and it is more likely to accelerate
>>>> than stay the same, then in 56 years our interest payments will equal
>>>> our income. In fact since about half of the expenditures of the Govt
>>>> is mandatory to even minimally survive, this means in about 23 years
>>>> the US Govt will be worse than broke, it could not even pay its
>>>> interest payments.

still, i'm damned interested in your argumnet, though i don't understand it
fully. could you flesh it out, some. i figure bill missed the fact that
you were concerned with "interest payments", not the debt, per se.

>>> False. The majority (2/3rds)of the "debt" is in the form of bonds and
>>> other public debt, which we all know are very very low rate of return.

well, yeah, right, bill, but still you write below that you are "heavily
invested" in them. doesn't your company give you *any* latitude in relation
to investing?
>>
>> well, low as the might be, g.t. is concerned that "10%" of government
income
>> goes to pay interest on debt. and he's concerned that it will go much,
much
>> higher, as a % of income (from taxpayers, btw).
>
> Without evidence to support it (hint: I've seen the evidence and it
> doesn't support the "fear" or so-called "concern"), it is nothing more
> than fear. Kind of like "global warming".

well, hell, if you've seen the evidence, why not post it to gary (and me).
i always go with the evidence, if it merits it.
>
>>> Furthermore, this debt the government can "roll over", by issuing new
>>> bonds to replace the old bonds.
>>
>> well, yeah, of course "they" can. they've been doing that for years.
>> what's you point? and "they" can go even further in debt, as they have
for
>> years. but what the hell does "rolling over" have to do with interest
>> expense as a % of income? "interst expense" is g.t. concern. it may be
>> misplaced, but "rolling over" totally misses his argument, and thus, is
>> beside the point.
>
> It isn't all about interest expense, Larry if you had "read the whole
> post" first maybe you would understand that. Focusing on ONE thing out
> of a large series of data is irresponsible and useless.

uhh, bill, if we humans are to understand things, we hold the other
variables as constant as we can, mentally, and think about things one thing
at a time. i believe that called a controlled experment by scientests, and
it is no less useful for the mind.

> Now, what does
> it have to do with interest expense? Creditors. the US borrows money
> from the Federal Reserve Bank, or from the public through bonds, etc..
> The latter is far more "expensive" than the former. If it were to roll
> over debt as opposed to borrowing from the fed, the total interest
> decreases.

well, maybe so. but does that allay gary's concerns? plus, the fed doesn't
buy many bonds, unless it's out to increase the money supply, by "printing"
dollars (increasing bank reserves) to buy them. i'm truly interested in
the fed's interest rates versus the market ones, could you fill me in, or
give me a reference?>
>
>> i'll tell ya this, i ain't too real happy about "10%" of my fed. taxes
going
>> to do nothing but pay interest to bondholders (lots of japanese doing the
>> holding). and if that percent goes even higher, with rumsfield saying he
>
> Ahh, perhaps a bit of "racism" there, claiming the Japanese are who the
> govt is beholden to, Larry? Fact of the matter is, you are wrong.

bill, you are nearly as good at unsupported assertion as i am. and no,
there was not the slightest racism there. i just wanted to point out that
we "don't owe it to ourselves" with japan in the market for u.s. bonds.
and bill, i'm not fully aware of the current circumstance, but the japenese,
with their stock market in a long term tank, and the banks in serious
trouble, the japanese have been bigtime buyers of u.s. bonds. so much so,
over the last few years, that lots of commintators have worried about what
it would do to the earth's economy if they all tried bailing out at the same
time, should the dollar start a dramatic fall. for a japenese, you don't
have to lose much on exchage rates, till ya get bigtime ripped by the "low
interest" rates. so, fact is, mom and pop, in japan, have been bailing into
gold, avoiding all paper, especially their own banks. that ain't the only
thing going on bill, but i will argue without the evidence to present at the
moment, the japanese have been bailing out of paper of all kinds, buying
gold. i sure don't blame 'em.
>
>> can fight wars on as many fronts as is necessary, i ain't gonna be very
>> damned happy if that % increases. i don't get much from the 'government'
in
>> relation to the taxes i pay, but i don't get squat from the % that goes
to
>> pay interest. truth is, i'm still paying interest on debt created to
>> finance the vietnma war. i'm real damned pissed about that!! and your
>> "roll it over" doesn't not help me at all, with the interest payment
>> concern.
>
> Well, in my "bluntness" Larry, I'll say that that is because you don;t
> understand the economics behind it.

well, bill, ecnomics has been my life long interest. i nearly got a degree
in it from ISU, 'till i found they had nothing to offer, and i found a good
job, still keeping it up with the reading.

so, yeah, you are "blunt" to a fault, bill, but you never use the "f" word.

> As I mentioned above, if the
> government used bonds, etc. more, as opposed to more borrowing from the
> Federal Reserve Bank, that percentage could/would decrease. But by
> focusing on the number of the debt as opposed to the makeup and
> economics behind it, it will not.

well, like with gary, i still don't understand your argument. at best it
buys time for gary, with his concerns, but truly, i don't understand him,
either.
>
>>>> You can be sure that the repercussions of this time deadline will be
>>>> felt way before this occurs.
>>>> It says to me that we are careering into a national money meltdown. US
>>>
>>> The "*Federal* Debt" is such a red herring.

well, i agree with gary, we are careening into a "melt-down" of government
paper. someday it will be used as wallpaper, as in germany, and as in every
damned country which tried it, with the state given a monoply on money,
substuting the paper of their printing presses.

it not just the "federal debt", though. it's all kinds of unfunded
liabilities which are not counted, like social security.
>>
>> bill, you remind me of my socialist economics professor when i was going
to
>> ISU: "don't worry about the size of the national debt, we owe it to
>> ourselves", he said nearly every damnded day. well, there again, the
>> collective "we" raises it's ugly head, this time as "ourselves". thing
is,
>> bill, i don't own any of that debt. all i do is pay interest on it to
those
>> who do. there ain't no "ourselves" about it. as a taxpayer, forced by
the
>> governmnet i "owe" the bondholders, not myself.
>
> Making an argument before hearing it, eh larry? So, you don't have any
> money in retirement accounts, etc? Sad to hear that. Fact is most
> retirement plans from companies, most investment funds, etc., include
> federal bonds, primarily to mitigate risk. More people rely on bonds
> than they realize.

yeah, they do. and they will get hammered some day, though not as soon as
gary thinks, i figure. someday, the only damned use for the government's
paper will be wallpaper. it's happened time and time again, in history.
>
>
>>> it is as Zubrin would call it "A dragon that needs slaying".
>>
>> uhh, bill, name dropper. who the hell is zubrin? did my ISU professor
>> change his name?
>
> Not likely, he's probably passed on ... that was what a century ago, you
> old codger you? ;)
>
> It isn't "name dropping" unless you expect it to have any impact on the
> reader. I don't expect anyone here to know Zubrin. I'm merely giving him
> the credit he deserves for the phrase. You got a problem with that?

well, i do, since i have a bigtime problem with his argument, as i did with
my socialist professor. i agree, the state's debt is not the first and
foremost thing to worry about, but it ai'nt no "f" red-herring.
>
>
>>> There has been no positive correlation
>>> shown between increased Federal Debt (FD) and Interest rates, for
>>> example. indeed, there appears to be a minimal *negative* correlation.
>>> Meaning that as FD increases, IR decreases; it is a minor change though.
>>
>> statistics can often lie, or obscure. think about it, bill. new FD is
>
> Statistics *can* be used to misrepresent things, yes. But does that mean
> they always do? Nope.
>
>> financed in the capital markets. every damnded dollar which goes to buy
a
>> new government bond is subtracted from the capital available to lend -
>> supply of capital drops, necessarily. interest rates are the price of
>> borrowing money, which equlibrates supply and demand. with capital
diverted
>> to government, the supply falls, while demand remains the same. interest
>> rates **must** rise, to a point higher than they would **otherwise** have
>> been, to eqalibrate supply with demand. yeah, interest rates may not
have
>> gone up, BUT IT'S FOR DAMNED SURE THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THEY OTHERWISE
WOULD
>> HAVE BEEN. think about it. and, as you wrote, think about it again.
>
> Then you have proof that as the FD rose, so did interest rates? If not,
> your claim it does is without merit. Oh wait, you wouldn't let the facts
> get in the way of your argument would you larry? I used to believe like
> you did, until I learned the reality and history regarding the FD.
>
> Indeed, one thing (of many) missing from your scenario is that bonds are
> most often used as security for larger loans to grow capital. It;s kind
> of comical for you to write that IR *MUST* rise, and then admit they
> didn't. Of course, you switch to "they'd be lower!" argument w/o any
> evidence to support it.

bill, i did not switch to the argument. let me give you an example, in the
twenties the FRB was "printing money" like crazy but there was no inflation.
why? because in a free economy, prices fall with increases in productivity.
the fed felt perfectly comfortable "printing money" like crazy, 'cause there
was no effect on the price level, with them figuring higher prices was they
only thing they had to watch out for. well, bill, if prices should be
falling, with increases in productivity, and they remained stable. well,
there were horrible missalocations of investment, given the signals from the
fed, and from intrerest rates.

we paid the price with the great depression.

if i write "lowerer than they otherwise would have been" i'm not employing
bullshit to win an argument. i'm compareing what the market would have
done, with what the state did. please, bill, i was not shifting horses in
mid-stream.

>
>>>
>>> The question to ask is what is the debt-income ratio?
>>
>> that's a damned important question for you and i to think about. but
since
>> the state's income is taken from my hide, i have a helluva a lot more
>> important questions to think about than the state's "ratio". both debt,
and
>> taxes divert resources to the state. given what it is doing, it has
**far**
>> too many "resources".
>
> So then you won't think about the question you agree is important to
> think about?

it's important to think about, comes to strategy, i agree. and believe me,
i've though about it. but the bottomline for me is, strategy being real
damned important, THE BOTTOMLINE IS, THE STATE HAS VASTLY TOO MANY
RESOURCES, WHETHER THAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY TAXES, DEBT, OR THE "PRINTING
PRESS".
>
>>> or what is the
>>> growth of assets in relation to the growth of debt? *These* are the
>>> questions that provide reasonable economic answers. Talking about debt
>>> without talking about assets is misguided at best. What if I said I were
>>> a million dollars in debt, would be horrified, or would you wonder what
>>> my assets were? it makes a difference. If I were a million dollars in
>>> debt but had 10 million dollars in assets, that is a far different
>>> situation if I were a million dollars in debt and had half a million in
>>> assets.
>>
>> the assets for government are primarily tax payers. i'm damned tired of
>> being an asset for government, whatever the % if interest is.
>
> Wrong. The primary assets of the government are the buildings, the land,
> the equipment, etc.. Many of the assets or results of investment are
> intangibles.

you so damned blunt with your "wrong", bill. if those are truly "assets" as
you say, write me up with the scenario of when the state puts 'em on the
auction block, to pay it's bills. i'd love to see it go out of business,
auctioning "it's" assets, but that ain't gonna happen. the only true assets
of the state are working men and women, paying their tax bill

and, let me add, they are truly the folks who own the "assets" you write of.
now, i ani't gonna quibble with you about police stations, and courthouses,
for another 500 years. but if you claim the "assets" of the state are truly
**it's** assets. well, what i can't figure is why you claim to be a lib?

the soviet union had no legit claim on the "assets" of the factorys. none!!
and despite you quoting adam smith, i figure he's full of it when it comes
to infrastructure (not his word), and in relation to education, just for
starters. humans could have handled it all by themselves, voluntariy, so we
libs claim (or at least all but you).
>
>>> What if I double my debt but tripled my assets? What if I halved my debt
>>> but cut my assets by 3/4s?
>>
>> bill, you are damned right here, unfortunately. debt is measured in "old
>> dollars", and assets are measured in "current dollars".
>
> No, larry it is not. There are well known economic processes for
> comparing dollar amounts in equal terms. This is what is done.

BILL, SICK AS I AM, I'M GETTING A LITTLE TIRED, AND GROUCHY. YEAH, THERE
ARE WAYS TO DO IT. JUST WANNA ASK YA, ARE YOUR GOVERNMENT BONDS INDEXED TO
INFLATION? HELL NO!! IF YOU BUY A STATE BOND, AT IT'S DISCOUNTED PRICE,
WITH IT PAYING YOU INTEREST, THANKS TO THE TAXPAYER, AND YOU HOLD IT TO
MATURITY, MAYBE THIRTY YEARS, ALL YOU GET IS THE FACE VALUE. THE INFLATION
RATE, GENERATED BY THE STATE COULD HAVE BEEN 4,000 % PERCENT BY THEN, AND
YOU COULD BUY A LOAF OF BREAD WITH YOUR MATURED BOND.

ONE *F* THING THE STATE DOES NOT DO, AND NEVER WILL, IS INDEX IT DEBTS!
>
>
>> bill, the various states in history recognized your wisdom, long before
you
>> were born. if you inflate the "currency" enough, and increase the dollar
>> denominated "value" of the assets, you can reduce your debt to a minscule
%.
>> but inflating the currency, with a general rise in the dollar denominated
>> "value" of assests is just a hidden tax by governmnet. it gets to
pay-off
>> the bondholders with dollars which a worth less (or is it **worthless**).
>> and all the shoppers pay the price, one way or another.
>
> Yes, that is why in order to "pay down" the FD, it *must* run "budget
> surpluses".

NOW, bill, neither gary or i have argued for running surpluses to pay down
the debt. your fighting with someone, as yet unnamed.

> Which means raising taxes and/or lowering expenditures.

well, hell yes, lowerer expenditures!!! i thought you were a lib?

> If
> it continues to do so, it winds up purchasing parts of the economy
> through "investments".

b.s., bill, neither gary or i have said a peep about running state surpluses
so's it can but up the land, and factories. that's a figment of you own
imagination, in relation to gary and i. there ain't a chance in hell,
spendthrift that it is, the government is gonna by up my mortagae with
surpluses.

dunno who got you on this rant, bill, but i figure it must have been a true
right-winger, with connections to the john birch society.

bill, as i see it, the last damned thing you have to worry about is
government running such supluses that it pays down the debt, and then starts
buying up private debt.

good gawd, they ain't even figured how to fund social-security, yet!!!

as i see it, bill, you've been keeping real nuttso company with the
"right-wing" books you've been reading.

so, bill, i told you i was tired, and sick. i did 'better' than i thought i
could, but i can't go on, even though i would love to write to the bottom.

sorry,

sincerely,

larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:12:08 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

bill, others,

bill, i thought of another way to explain away you argument that government
has assets.

when the state sells a thirty-year bond, it's an IOU. Yup!! it is not
collaterized with a peice of a government freeway.

it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
taxpayers.

now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but they
gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
"faith in credit".

freeways are not collateral, bill, and they have **never** been offered as
such.

now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
"assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned risk.

it's no damned "red herring" bill. government paper ain't worth the paper
and ink it's printed. it's just that humans, with goverment a gawd, still
are "belivers" in peices of paper with ink, issued by the state.

well, i have a lot of problems with "faith". i figure you know that.

sincerely,

larry




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: 19 Feb 2003 05:17:02 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 02:12, larry fullmer wrote:
> bill, others,
>
> bill, i thought of another way to explain away you argument that
government
> has assets.

Bring it on. :^)

> when the state sells a thirty-year bond, it's an IOU. Yup!! it is not
> collaterized with a peice of a government freeway.

Correct, it is nothing more than an IOU. Just as a corporate bond is.
I've never said anything to the contrary. But there is more to it than
that, and I suspect you may know that. From a purely economic
standpoint, the safest investment is U.S. bonds. Would you take an IOU
from some random person on the street? From Frank, from me, from Gookin?
>From Michelle? How about from your US Senator? See the point?

Bonds are safe for many reasons. The least of which is that if the US
Government s not paying off binds, there are far, far, far bigger
problems that a petty bond! Basically, at that point, it really won't
matter, given all the other things that'll be going on.

> it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
> taxpayers.
>
> now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but they
> gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
> "faith in credit".

And they *always* do. That's important. (Economics, not politics)

>
> freeways are not collateral, bill, and they have **never** been offered as
> such.

Right, nobody has said they are, so what are you saying, what is your
point? (technically, I suppose the land they are on can be considered an
asset, and since the roadway and lighting infrastructure provide things,
they are capital and hence, could be considered an asset).

> now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
> monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
> "assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned risk.

Larry, it's a strawman, nobody has said what you are railing against.

> it's no damned "red herring" bill. government paper ain't worth the paper
> and ink it's printed. it's just that humans, with goverment a gawd, still
> are "belivers" in peices of paper with ink, issued by the state.

Larry, there is a big problem with your argument. Te government has
always paid it's bonds on maturity. Always. *Always*. That is why the
rate is so low; the risk is low. Past performance *is* a reliable
predictor of future behavior. I'll take decades/centuries of an
organization faithfully (hehe) paying it's bonds on time over a
"secured" loan from one that *needs* to "secure" it's loans with
collateral. If I'm after low-risk, the former is safer than the latter.
Just as in private interactions. If I demonstrate to my banker that the
risk of me paying him back is small, I'll need less-if any- collateral,
and get a better (i.e. lower) interest rate.

See Larry, you may not *like* the *fact* that the government has assets,
but it does. Buildings, vehicles, land, etc. are all assets whether or
not you like that -it is economics not politics. Don't let what you
like/dislike get in the way of the facts. The argument that they'd never
sell these assets is 1) untenable, and 2) irrelevant. I have things I'd
never sell (unless/even if totally desperate), but that does *not* make
them less of an asset. Many, many, many times the government has sold
it's some of it's assets; from missile silos to military surplus,
vehicles to desks.

The Federal Government's debt as a political issue is a red herring; it
takes one away from far, far, far more important and relevant issues.
The argument that the US FedGov's debt negatively impacts the economy is
bunk, indeed the evidence shows a slightly opposite effect. The "debt"
red herring makes what is purely economical into a political miasma.

> well, i have a lot of problems with "faith". i figure you know that.

Yes you have a problem with religious faith and "faithfully" (hehe)
carry that over to *every* use of the word -even in non-religious
contexts. However, *I* am not talking about faith.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 03:02:15 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill, others(?),

interspersed below:

on 2/19/03 4:17 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

<snip>

> But there is more to it than
> that, and I suspect you may know that. From a purely economic
> standpoint, the safest investment is U.S. bonds.

well, bill, i hope you're not safety conscious, putting your money
into bonds of the state. try selling a thirty-year government bond
which pays 3% when the rate for the newly issued is 18%. yeah, the
bond will pay 3% 'till maturity, but if you wanna cash out to seek
higher rates, or for any other reason, you'll lose one helluva a lot
of invested principal. you're too young to know firsthand about what
inflation does to the "safety" of government bonds. i truly hope you
don't have to learn the hard way.

but you're right, in the context of the moment, they seem "safe",
that's why so many japanese have been buying 'em, with no damned where
else to but their hard earned money. but lots of them, even, are
smelling 'dead fish', and converting to gold, even though it pays no
interest. they just want to conserve their principal. they're damned
sick of ious, from anyone, especially governments.

> Would you take an IOU
> from some random person on the street? From Frank, from me, from Gookin?
> From Michelle? How about from your US Senator? See the point?

nope, i don't, except for 'u.s. senator'. i'd trust you, and even gookin
before i will trust the paper/ink of any government.
>
> Bonds are safe for many reasons. The least of which is that if the US
> Government s not paying off bonds, there are far, far, far bigger
> problems that a petty bond!

no shit! but that day is coming. it always comes, when there's nothing
floating around but paper/ink ious from the state. those who don't know
about history are condemded to repeat it, with their faith/trust in the
ink/paper of the state.

> Basically, at that point, it really won't
> matter, given all the other things that'll be going on.

yeah, like society collapsing into fascism (or socialism, if you prefer).

well, bill, the state will *always* pay its bills, with paper/ink. that
does not mean that you will be able to buy anything with it. i thought you
started out here talking about safety and security.
>
>
>> it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
>> taxpayers.
>>
>> now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but
they
>> gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
>> "faith in credit".
>
> And they *always* do. That's important. (Economics, not politics)

ALWAYS!!!, YOU WRITE. you're such a young guy, bill, with not much history
under you belt.

you're a libertarian, and you tell me paper/ink from the state is the safest
investment you can make. excuse me, bill, but i gotta go ROTFALMAO!!

>> now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
>> monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
>> "assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned risk.
>
> Larry, it's a strawman, nobody has said what you are railing against.

i'm railing against state paper/ink as a place to put trust/faith. the
state will rip you off any damned way it can. the state's debt is a way
to acquire resources for its own purposes, as is taxation. truth is, bill,
with the ultimate price to pay, i much prefer taxation. that, at least
does not lay the ground work for a collapse into chaos (as you, yourself,
have noted would happen, should it be recognized that the state is doing
a damned poor job of paying it's bills, with the printing press, with the
taxpayers maxed to the hilt.>
>
>
>> it's no damned "red herring" bill. government paper ain't worth the
paper
>> and ink it's printed. it's just that humans, with goverment a gawd,
still
>> are "belivers" in peices of paper with ink, issued by the state.
>
> Larry, there is a big problem with your argument. The government has
> always paid it's bonds on maturity.

yup, most often with devalued paper/ink. since the u.s state started
issuing paper/ink, there ain't been a day when a 30-year bondholder could
have bought, with what they got paid, what they could have bought when the
'invested'. so, bill, buy something real, even if it's cases of whiskey.
criminee, don't invest in paper/ink printed by the state. you'll get ripped
every damnded time, unless you are more nimble than most.

> The Federal Government's debt as a political issue is a red herring; it
> takes one away from far, far, far more important and relevant issues.

well, bill, you are right, there are one helluva a lot of things to worry
about. you raised the issue. think of the worst case. think about belivers
in government relalizing paper/ink from the state can't buy 'em anything of
real value.

> The argument that the US FedGov's debt negatively impacts the economy is
> bunk, indeed the evidence shows a slightly opposite effect. The "debt"
> red herring makes what is purely economical into a political miasma.

christ, bill, you're so damned wrong, with you willing to flirt with chaos.

but i don't wanna get into a 'statistics' battle with ya. have it your way,
for the time being. you'll see the evicence before you die.

>> well, i have a lot of problems with "faith". i figure you know that.
>
> Yes you have a problem with religious faith and "faithfully" (hehe)
> carry that over to *every* use of the word -even in non-religious
> contexts. However, *I* am not talking about faith.

you sure as hell are, bill, if you are investing in paper/ink issued by the
state.

full faith in the state is what you are arguing for, in relation to
paper/ink. well, truly, paper with ink on it ain't worth squat. not long
ago that paper/ink represented true, real value, backed with gold and silver
as it was. but no more. and its only been a flash of time, and habit. i
hope you don't get stuck with paper/ink, when 'musical chairs' game is up.

sincerly,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:14:00 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...

Larry Fullmer originally wrote:
> > when the state sells a thirty-year bond, it's an IOU. Yup!! it is not
> > collaterized with a peice of a government freeway.

You replied:
> Correct, it is nothing more than an IOU. Just as a corporate bond is.
> I've never said anything to the contrary. But there is more to it than
> that, and I suspect you may know that. From a purely economic
> standpoint, the safest investment is U.S. bonds. Would you take an IOU
> from some random person on the street? From Frank, from me, from Gookin?
> >From Michelle? How about from your US Senator? See the point?

That isn't a very great defence for promoting government ink, Bill.

Frank, Michelle, Dan, doesn't sell bonds, but governments usually do.

If I were to have purchased bonds, say, from United Airlines, before
they had moved into bankruptcy court, I would at least have a degree
of claim to the corporate assets in paying some of that back.

Larry made a good case, that government has no such collateral to
offer, that is, insofar as government assets are only backed up by
individual taxpayers. At least in the case of bankruptcy courts, all
assets are put on the table to pay creditors first.

I suggest corporate bonds are usually still largely a good hedge in a
badly deteriorated market. When it *REALLY* gets bad, gold, or real
assets such as real estate are a far greater value to individual
investors than government assets. The US dollar still is taking a
tremendous beating on foreign exchange markets. So even US government
bonds is a raw deal. Which is why the gold market has surged so far in
the last 18 months or so.

> Bonds are safe for many reasons.

Well, US bonds aren't safe at all. As I just reported, US denominated
bonds are at a loss when considering other currencies, including the
Euro. I'm not suggesting that Euro denominated bonds are all that
great in the long run either. Only much better during the course of
the last 18 months than US government paper. I own NO US paper, other
than the FRN's in my wallet or bank account, and the stock equities in
which I am engaged which also is discounted largely by international
monetary realities. But again, I invest largely in the market, rather
than in bonds. I've never liked bonds, especially in turbulent times.

> The least of which is that if the US
> Government s not paying off binds, there are far, far, far bigger
> problems that a petty bond! Basically, at that point, it really won't
> matter, given all the other things that'll be going on.

You are correct, at least in this point. However, buying up gold is a
good option in such times. So is purchasing additional real estate
equity. No. I am not buying into gold -- yet, although I have to admit
it is probably going to be the ultimate hedge if things get seriously
much worse than they are today.

Larry wrote:
> > now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but
they
> > gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
> > "faith in credit".

And, you replied:
> And they *always* do. That's important. (Economics, not politics)

Yes. But history has shown it doesn't automatically work that way. You
only assume US fiat currency will be worth about the same as it does
today, in say, another 12-18 months. You assume therefore that the
bond you bought today, in US dollars, will be intrinsic to the value
of what it will be worth in 5 - 10 years. Remember, we are talking
here mainly about ink and paper, not tangible assets, as Larry pointed
out.

United Airlines, even in bankruptcy court, has much more than that to
put on the table. I still have around 500 shares or so in United
Airlines, although that too is hopefully contingent upon final
settlements and the strength of real assets to perform. I do not own
United Airlines bonds. In economic dynamics, there is much more to all
of this than can be explained in simple conversation. In some sense,
you are correct that it is very difficult often to separate economic
from political concerns. Economics will always drive politics.

Larry wrote:
> > freeways are not collateral, bill, and they have **never** been offered
as
> > such.

You replied:
> Right, nobody has said they are, so what are you saying, what is your
> point? (technically, I suppose the land they are on can be considered an
> asset, and since the roadway and lighting infrastructure provide things,
> they are capital and hence, could be considered an asset).

Why do you feel this is legally defensible? Many constitutional
scholars have long suggested that such ownership itself in
indefensible. As long as you are on this subject, just how many
federal government assets might be claimed as legitimate assets? The
so-called public lands? National Parks?

My only response to this is that the US federal government is a
perpetual sponge, soaking up tax dollars, creating inflation to
subsidize its downside, and with little more to show than worthless
paper promises to pay, known as FRNs which itself it does not own! Not
much of a portfolio that I might like to buy into anyway. Short term,
maybe. Long term, no way. It's only upside, is that it still has the
ability to tax. Take away that ability, and the assets become very
questionable, even if they were put on the table, which they aren't.

Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
> > monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
> > "assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned risk.

> Larry, it's a strawman, nobody has said what you are railing against.

I disagree. This is no strawman, per se. It's part and parcel of the
argument against buying into government paper. It calls into question
a lot of things, particularly in this case, what might legitimately be
underlying government debt at the federal level. When things really
get terribly bad, buy gold. I still haven't reached that point. But,
I believe, the point is a good one. When you buy into gold, you are
buying into supply and demand, not on government ink and paper.

> Larry, there is a big problem with your argument. Te government has
> always paid it's bonds on maturity. Always. *Always*. That is why the
> rate is so low; the risk is low. Past performance *is* a reliable
> predictor of future behavior.

No. I object. It is not. Government performance rises and falls all
the time, as the US government's performance currently shows in the
diminishing value of the US dollar. What the US government offers in
terms of interest, has been largely erased by the current value of the
US dollar. It only shows you are being paid in largely devaluated
(worthless ink and paper).

To bring this point home, certain portfolios in African stock has
risen 38% over the last 18 months in terms of US denominated
securities of the same value given the offset for devaluation of the
dollar. Government bonds therefore are marginalized, depending largely
on their value, which again is largely paper based and of no real
ultimate value at all.

> I'll take decades/centuries of an
> organization faithfully (hehe) paying it's bonds on time over a
> "secured" loan from one that *needs* to "secure" it's loans with
> collateral. If I'm after low-risk, the former is safer than the latter.

Then, you may have guessed wrong. Only time will tell. Right now you
are losing.

> Just as in private interactions. If I demonstrate to my banker that the
> risk of me paying him back is small, I'll need less-if any- collateral,
> and get a better (i.e. lower) interest rate.

Again, the collateral thing, in terms of the US government is an open
question, and it really isn't on the table unless the government melts
down. It could. Other governments have.

> See Larry, you may not *like* the *fact* that the government has assets,
> but it does. Buildings, vehicles, land, etc.

And, specifically, what assets does the government really have, aside
from vehicles, buildings (also under question by many) OTHER THAN THE
ABILITY TO TAX? As I see it, ultimately that is the chief asset that
this government does have -- the ability to tax. Tell the government
to sell the vehicles -- the buildings... what else does the federal
government claim in assets except for its ability to tax?

> are all assets whether or
> not you like that -it is economics not politics.

It's right now, all politics Bill. Again, economics largely drives
political direction. As it currently does in China, which is enjoying
the greatest economic dynamics on earth.

> Don't let what you
> like/dislike get in the way of the facts. The argument that they'd never
> sell these assets

Unfortunately, you believe the US federal government has such assets.
What real assets does the US government have a right to claim
ownership over? Taxation seems to be the real clue here. That too can
change in the right political climate, and we're a long way to even
coming close to achievement of such a goal. It doesn't really matter
on the scale of things whether or not they really have such assets or
not. What really matters is in the way in which such assets are
qualified, not only whether or not such assets are probably even
existent and thereby questionable.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:18:15 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Phyllis

> Just as in the argument between theism and atheism, there
> is a lot of proof on both sides, but neither side will
> accept the proof of the other side. I submit that, in both
> instances, the jury is still out.

Saying proof on both sides just indicates that you have
contradictory ideas about proof.

It is like saying 2+2=5.

> That is why I have joined the Free State Project
> http://www.freestateproject.com , membership of which is
> composed of a mixture of Christians, Pagans, Atheists and
> who knows what other faiths - united by a passion for
> freedom and the determination that government's maximal
> role should be to defend individuals from force and fraud.

To defend from unreasonable force. To talk about all force
limits the government from using it too with criminals.

Regards
Tim

No Compromises
Byron: The geometries that circumscribe your waking
life draw narrower and narrower until nothing fits
inside them any more

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:55:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com, tim.bedding@polyhedra.com

--- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
> Phyllis
>
> > Just as in the argument between theism and
> atheism, there
> > is a lot of proof on both sides, but neither side
> will
> > accept the proof of the other side. I submit that,
> in both
> > instances, the jury is still out.
>
> Saying proof on both sides just indicates that you
> have
> contradictory ideas about proof.
>
> It is like saying 2+2=5.

A statement that proves Phyllis's point: Atheists
don't accept theists' proof.

> > That is why I have joined the Free State Project
> > http://www.freestateproject.com , membership of
> which is
> > composed of a mixture of Christians, Pagans,
> Atheists and
> > who knows what other faiths - united by a passion
> for
> > freedom and the determination that government's
> maximal
> > role should be to defend individuals from force
> and fraud.
>
> To defend from unreasonable force. To talk about all
> force
> limits the government from using it too with
> criminals.

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding
of the libertarian concept of force. Libertarians are
opposed to "initiations of force" not "unreasonable
force." Force is only justifiable when it is used to
defend against initiations of force.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:51:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle Eilers wrote to Tim Bedding...

Tim Bedding wrote:
> > To defend from unreasonable force. To talk about all
> > force
> > limits the government from using it too with
> > criminals.

You replied:
> Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding
> of the libertarian concept of force. Libertarians are
> opposed to "initiations of force" not "unreasonable
> force." Force is only justifiable when it is used to
> defend against initiations of force.

I was about to write something along these lines when I noticed your
reply. Nicely done!

Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:15:16 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Michelle

> A statement that proves Phyllis's point: Atheists
> don't accept theists' proof.

Assertion is not argument. Saying something is proof
does not make it a proof any more than saying
the moon is made of green cheese makes it so.

> Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding
> of the libertarian concept of force. Libertarians are
> opposed to "initiations of force" not "unreasonable
> force." Force is only justifiable when it is used to
> defend against initiations of force.

Saying "gravity exists" is not a demonstration of gravity.

You have failed to explain how what I said demonstrates
anything at all.

I thought you were a college professor or something.
Are you a theist or something?

Here is what I said.

>> To defend from unreasonable force. To talk about all
>> force limits the government from using it too with
>> criminals.

None of this "demonstrates" any lack of understanding at all.

Regards
Tim

Each Night I dream of Home
Gideon: You're even more naive than I gave
you credit for

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:26:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com, tim.bedding@polyhedra.com

--- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
> Michelle
>
> > A statement that proves Phyllis's point: Atheists
> > don't accept theists' proof.
>
> Assertion is not argument. Saying something is proof
> does not make it a proof any more than saying
> the moon is made of green cheese makes it so.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. But if
you're suggesting theists have never presented
arguments supporting belief in some god, you obviously
aren't very familiar with the copious philosophical
writings on the question of god's existence.

Theists *have* presented arguments for god's
existence. Whether their arguments are valid is a
separate question.

> > Again you demonstrate a complete lack of
> understanding
> > of the libertarian concept of force. Libertarians
> are
> > opposed to "initiations of force" not
> "unreasonable
> > force." Force is only justifiable when it is used
> to
> > defend against initiations of force.
>
> Saying "gravity exists" is not a demonstration of
> gravity.
>
> You have failed to explain how what I said
> demonstrates
> anything at all.

Again, I don't know how your above statements relate
to what I said.

> I thought you were a college professor or something.
> Are you a theist or something?

Yes I'm a college professor and yes I am an atheist.
I didn't realize, however, that college professors and
theists were mutually exclusive categories. (Some of
my colleagues would be most disturbed if it turned out
that was so.)

> Here is what I said.
>
> >> To defend from unreasonable force. To talk about
> all
> >> force limits the government from using it too
> with
> >> criminals.
>
> None of this "demonstrates" any lack of
> understanding at all.

In this and other posts you have demonstrated a lack
of understanding of the libertarian concept of force.
You seem to lump all uses of "force" together and then
assume one should use force only when it is
"reasonable" to do so. This is contrary to the
libertarian view, which divides "force" into
"initiations of force" (which are not justifiable) and
defenses against initiations of force (which are
justifiable).

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:59:48 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Please hang with me here, as I try and re-establish the thread of this
conversation.

Michelle Eilers wrote to Tim Bedding...

Tim Bedding previously wrote:
> > >> To defend from unreasonable force. To talk about
> > all
> > >> force limits the government from using it too
> > with
> > >> criminals.
> > None of this "demonstrates" any lack of
> > understanding at all.

And, to which Michelle replied:
> In this and other posts you have demonstrated a lack
> of understanding of the libertarian concept of force.
> You seem to lump all uses of "force" together and then
> assume one should use force only when it is
> "reasonable" to do so. This is contrary to the
> libertarian view, which divides "force" into
> "initiations of force" (which are not justifiable) and
> defenses against initiations of force (which are
> justifiable).

I thought you had made this distinction very clear the first time
around. Tim raised the issue of universal force [above], that is: "To
talk about all force limits the government from using it too with
criminals." You, I, or any other libertarian that I am aware of on
this list have NEVER talked about force being a universally applied
concept.

Tim therefore fails to grasp or understand even the most basic
libertarian principle concerning the use of force, e.g.: when it is
illegitimate, and when it is may have a necessary or legitimate
foundation. I'm wondering if Tim really does want to understand the
distinctions you made. Perhaps conceding to that understanding might
undermine what he really wishes to convey, that he wants to believe it
is morally right for the UK and the US to initiate force against Iraq,
even without a shred of hard evidence that Iraq is posing an imminent
threat of initiating force against the UK or US, for example.

So, it appears it is simply more convenient for Tim to ignore and side
step this issue, and pass it off as something that no one here has
even suggested, that force is morally a universal concept based upon
reason. In doing so, he bases the morality of force against Iraq on
whether or not it is reasonable, rather than determining whether such
force may be aggression against Iraq, or the initiation of
non-defencive (immoral) force.

You are also correct in stating that legitimate uses of force may or
may not be reasonable, since reason is not the criteria upon whether
or not force may be legitimate.

For example, if the ATF thugs smash open my door in the dead of night
with tremendous armed man power and lethal resources, I would be
morally right to defend myself in any way possible. To do so however,
wouldn't be reasonable, because I would be tremendously outgunned, and
any such attempt would fail, whether morally right or not.

Thanks Michelle for a really great re-statement of the libertarian
position on the use of force.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Second Amendment
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:29:25 -0700
From: Dan Gookin <dgookin@wambooli.com>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>

At 7:37 PM -0700 2/17/03, Ronald G Wittig wrote:
>[snip]

Thanks, Ron!

My favorite part, the modern re-statement:

"Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be abridged."

DAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [CPOP] Text Version-HELP KEEP MARY STARRETT RADIO SHOW ON THE AIR
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:39:23 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
CC: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>, libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>

Paul Freedom wrote:

> HELP KEEP MARY STARRETT RADIO SHOW ON THE AIR
>
> Please sign, circulate and return this petition ! Mary Starrett helps
> get information to the People in Oregon that the media wont print ....
>

Dennis Hayes
General Manager Salem Media Of Oregon wrote:
Dear Listener,
Thank you for e-mailing us your concern about the change in format on True
Talk 800 AM. It is always difficult when a medium has to make financial
decisions that affect many in their listening audience as well as the lives
of their personalities.Because of financial restrains, the economy and the
vision to move towards more of Salem Nationally syndicated programs, these
changes were prayerfully considered. I deeply regret that these steps had
to
be taken. However, in order for our Stations to continue to be strong in
the
marketplace, these moves were critical. If you have any questions please
feel
free to call me at 503-231-7800

Dennis Hayes
General Manager Salem Media Of Oregon

--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LTE-My Letter Published-Prohibition feeds drug woes
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:50:55 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
"laworegon@yahoogroups.com" <laworegon@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
"militia@montana.com" <militia@montana.com>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, "SOS@CFIWest.org" <SOS@CFIWest.org>,
TSF <12-step-free@yahoogroups.com>

Prohibition feeds drug woes

February 18, 2003

Your recent article about methamphetamine in our high schools was a case
of the ostrich with its head in the sand. Meth has been in our high
schools for 20 to 30 years. To think it’s something new because of a
large bust at McNary High School shows the media’s ignorance and
tendency to sensationalize.

When you make blanket statements like, “meth is a deadly weapon that has
no place in the hands of anyone,” you demonize the drug rather than the
behavior. Drugs can be good and bad.

Have you told your readers that methamphetamine is a prescription drug
under the trade name Desoxyn?

One way to help curb this problem would be to decriminalize drugs.
Prohibition of drugs enables kids access to all the drugs they desire.

Didn’t you know adults now go to kids for drugs? If it’s more toxic
now, that is directly due to the prohibitionist policies of government,
which clamp down on the precursors to make meth. This results in a more
toxic form of meth that is used by your sons and daughters. Just like
prohibition of alcohol led to bathtub gin, this insane effort to
eradicate all drugs has resulted in more poisonous speed.

-Paul Stone aka Paul Freedom

Salem

--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LTE-My Letter Published-Prohibition feeds drug woes
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:11:03 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
"laworegon@yahoogroups.com" <laworegon@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
"militia@montana.com" <militia@montana.com>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, "SOS@CFIWest.org" <SOS@CFIWest.org>,
TSF <12-step-free@yahoogroups.com>

Paul Freedom wrote:

> Prohibition feeds drug woes
>
> February 18, 2003

Paul wrote:
I forgot to note that this is in the Statesman Journal
of Salem, Oregon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LTE-My Letter Published-Prohibition feeds drug woes
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:00:08 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Paul Freedom
> One way to help curb this problem would be to decriminalize drugs.
> Prohibition of drugs enables kids access to all the drugs they
> desire.

Are there any documented precidents that have kids having less
access to a formerly-prohibited substance after prohibition
was ended?

I remember the movie The Untouchables.

What happened in Chicago during prohibition and afterwards
with respect to kids?

Regards
Tim

Santayana
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: phyllis Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:16:16 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

tim, phyllis, michelle

interspersed, and below:

on 2/18/03 11:55 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> --- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
>> Phyllis
>> Just as in the argument between theism and
>> atheism, there
>> is a lot of proof on both sides, but neither side
>> will accept the proof of the other side.

you're getting to be a bore about this proof thing, phyllis, as an agnostic
fence-sitter.

not even the believers claim they have proof, not even frank. faith is the
answer, they say, with no proof and no attempt to offer it, when it comes to
the bottomline.

and atheists have offered *no* proof that gawd does not exist, 'cause they
have no evidence to dispute. none!! like i wrote, phly, i can't prove
there is not a little green man sitting on your shoulder which only you can
comunicate with, given your faith in him. but if you make that claim, you
have not offered proof, AND THEY IS NO DAMNED WAY I CAN DISPROVE YOUR CLAIM,
SINCE YOU HAVE OFFERED *NO* ARGUMENT.

>> I submit that, in both
>> instances, the jury is still out.

as any good agnostic would say, wanting to keep their feet in both camps,
and not wanting to make a decision, based on the evidence, and the lack of
it.

>> Saying proof on both sides just indicates that you
>> have contradictory ideas about proof.
>> It is like saying 2+2=5.

tim, thanks for the sanity!! proof is proof, for any sane human who does
not want to believe what ever the hell they want to belive, just 'cause it
makes 'em feel good (for a moment).

it's very much like the dispute between the catholics and galileo. it made
the catholics feel good, thinking the sun revolved around them. and they
got real peed at galileo for claiming differently, silencing him by
threatening him with the rack as they did.

criminne, with how we value proof, in relation to the responsibily humans
have to seek truth, I FIGURE PHYLLIS IS STILL CLAIMING THE JURY IS STILL OUT
ON THE SUN QUESTION.

well, phyllis, juries are limited in the time they have to make a descision,
based on the evidence, and the lack of it. you're limited in relation to
your lifetime. but you'll be safe, by keeping your feet in both camps, eh?
from your fence rail??
>
> A statement that proves Phyllis's point: Atheists
> don't accept theists' proof.

michelle, what the "f" proof have the offered. they even admit, right up
front, that they have **no** proof.

show me the proof, or shut the "f" up with i won't accept proof. jesus h.
christ, i'd damned well like to have proof that i have a chance to live for
eternity, if i accept jesus into my life.

THE JURY SHOULD **NOT** BE OUT FOR A SECOND, IF SOME HUMAN MAKES A CLAIM TO
TRUTH, ANNOUNCING RIGHT UP FRONT THAT THEY HAVE NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE. THAT
JURY GETS TO GO HOME REAL DAMNED QUICK, UNLIKE PHYLLIS.

and phyllis, snipping michelle's relpy to you. i don't give a "f" what
freestaters belive, so long as liberty is the bottom line for it all.

we, then, can fight it out with no one getting hurt. but what the hell ya
gonna do when the "pro-lifers' show up, claiming they have a right to
"criminalize" pregnancy.

religion, faith based as it is, with it denying, even, the requirement of
evidence and proof, is sick bullshit.

sorry to read, phyllis, you're still a fence sitter.

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: missy - Re: [idaholibertarians] abortion
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:30:53 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

libnw, with no context,

on 2/18/03 11:27 PM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> hi, missy, others,
>
> thanks for writing, i was planning to write you.
>
> and thanks for checking out "adjunct scholar" gene callahan.
>
> i've only been reading at the rockwell site for a couple of months, and
the
> only thing i've seen from callahan has been two peices promoting/defending
the
> criminalizing of a woman's choice when it comes to pregnancy.
>
> obviously he had rockwell's approval for the missives, ON A SITE WHICH
CLAIMS
> AS, ONE OF IT'S PRIMARY MISSIONS, CARRYING ON THE GENIUS ON ROTHBARD, WHO
WAS
> A PRO-CHOICE AS THEY COME!!
>
> truly, missy, i try real hard not to bring up the subject in libertarian
> contexts. i have no problem with working with "criminalize pregnancy
choice"
> libertarians on our other joint goals. now, i did make a rather cryptic
> observation of the thirtieth anniversary of roe v wade awhile back, and it
was
> purposefully cryptic. and think gawd i did it 'cause ted posted the list
with
> the finest comment i've ever read on the subject (thanks, again, ted!!).
>
> but if "criminalze choice" libertarians bring the subject up, or try to
change
> the NLP platform, i figure they are fair game and should rise to defending
> their arguments (though they never do, not even callahan, "scholar" that
he
> claims to be. he refused to respond to me because i don't worry about the
> shift-key, 'cause he caught me in a couple of misspelling, and because
"(I)
> have the reading comprension of a three-year old.
>
> well, that's bullshit, missy, with him bringing the subject up, and i
don't
> mind calling it BULLSHIT!!, especially since he claims to be soooo
concerned
> about spelling.
>
> now, my last war with michelle erupted when i read her, in a communication
to
> someone else, comment on my disregard for fetuses. well, we warred about
it,
> and i figure we got somewhere - both of us. truly, while i would
sacrifice
> "warring" for the health of the party, when it truly comes to the
bottomline,
> as with marriage, it's much better to put the disagreements on the table
and
> fight about 'em than to try to bury 'em out of sight, when everyone knows
they
> are there.
>
> the fact is, THE DAMNED FACT IS, THE LP HAS BEEN PRO-CHOICE SINCE DAY ONE,
AS
> WERE OUR INTELLECTUAL FOUNDERS - MURRAY ROTHBARD AND AYN RAND.
>
> now, i don't mind that "criminalize choice" folks have signed on with us,
> given that foundation, SO LONG AS THE SHUT-UP ABOUT IT, AND TAKE THEIR
FIGHT
> TO OTHER VENUES. but if they want to start a war, like doris gordon
> (libertarians for "life"), frank, and gene callahan, WELL I GET REAL
DAMNED
> PISSED ABOUT THAT, AND I ALWAYS WILL!!! THEY DO NOT GET A FREE-RIDE WITH
ME,
> NOR DO FOLKS WHO WRITE "GOTTA RESPECT ALL OPINIONS". IF THEY BRING IT UP
WITH
> ME, THE LAST DAMNED THING THEY WILL GET IS RESPECT.
>
> I'M NO PACIFIST IN THE WAR OF IDEAS.
>
> sincerely,
>
> larry
>
> on 2/18/03 1:53 PM, Melissa Dunlap <melissa5152@yahoo.com> at
> melissa5152@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I did go back and look at the messages and found the link and read
>> what was there after I sent the message, Larry. I think I had to read
>> it three times to get it.
>>
>> The guest writer (on his website) really did stretch things to make a
>> point. The idea that people would accept killing children up to age
>> 13 was ludicrous. After age 13 is much more plausible *grin*, and up
>> to 18 years when one can cut all legal ties.
>>
>> No, I wouldn't want anyone to be able to tell me what to do with my
>> body. I may be pro-life, but I would never advocate legislation to
>> criminalize abortion.
>>
>> Missy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: frank, begging you....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:26:48 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

frank, others,

frank, if i promise never to write the "f" word again, even when i'm writing
about the likes of jonathon stumb, would you let me back into Ida-libs,
without prior censorship from you or bill.

i know i'm deserting some friends who don't want to read "fighting", but i
can copy those who ask, privately, and i would like to urge them to post
thier wisdom, even if they prefer not to read.

I'm getting damned tired of trying to remember who the hell i'm writng to.

whatca say, frank, first-in-time, first-in-right, some would say.

one other provzivo, though i ain't gonna go to the wall on this - i wish
you'd give it up with Id-libs is an official site. it ain't!!

we damned well oughta to keep our in-fighting seprate from the ILP.

okay, what ya think, frank?

sincerely,

larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: and, frank, Re: frank, begging you....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:47:14 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

frank, others,

i'm a moter-mouth. you know that. i want it agreed that there will be no
restrictions on my number of posts. i figure you're concerned about
circulation. well, i've found i can build it, for any group i'm in. when i
get kicked out, as i often do, the circulation drops dramatically.

are we one the same side, in relation to circulation, so long as i don't use
the "f" word?

sincerley,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: and, frank, Re: frank, begging you....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:24:28 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

on 2/19/03 1:47 AM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> frank, others,
>
> i'm a moter-mouth. you know that. i want it agreed that there will be no
> restrictions on my number of posts. i figure you're concerned about
> circulation. well, i've found i can build it, for any group i'm in. when
i
> get kicked out, as i often do, the circulation drops dramatically.
>
> are we one the same side, in relation to circulation, so long as i don't
use
> the "f" word?
>
> sincerley,
>
> larry
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: wisdom, with it in short supply, unlike nuclear weapons.....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:57:24 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
CC: "M.O.M." <militia@montana.com>

folks,

check out the wisdom.

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: oops, forgot the link - Re: wisdom, with it in short supply,
unlike nuclear weapons.....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:58:08 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
CC: "M.O.M." <militia@montana.com>

on 2/19/03 1:57 AM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> folks,
>
> check out the wisdom.
>
> lf

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0302j.asp

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: the "immaculate" virgin weeps....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:10:58 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
CC: "M.O.M." <militia@montana.com>

folks,

the immaculate "virgin" is on the anti-war side, so i read.

it's not often that religion counsels against war, with gawd on all sides,
so they say.

well, hell, anti-war needs all the help it can get.

even from a statue. ROTFLMAO!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2775461.stm

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: oops, sorry for the dry run... have some fun. caption this
photo!!
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:26:42 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

folks,

http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=caption;action=d
isplay;num=1045481486;start=0

have some fun, folks, or just observe the horror.

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Iraqis Trust in US Smart Bombs
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:37:32 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

A little different perspective on the prospects of war...

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/18/170423

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: frank, as i see it, you picked the fight....
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:59:05 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

so, frank,

with my trepidations, i signed on to lbnw, with you posting it with our
private dispute, or threatening too at least, with you not yet having done
it.

so, frank, you figured it was approrprite to discuss faith and religion on
*your* list. i'm skeptical, but you are the 'owner".

let's get in on, eh??

truly, i don't have much interest in fighting with bill, or robert.

let's talk about important stuff, or shut the "f" up.

whatca say, frank,

sincerely,

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:27:48 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, robert,

i'd respond to your questions, below and elsewhere about 'rights',
'inalienability', morality and such, but it would help me greatly in
attempting to do so if i know more about where you are coming from, so,
two questions for you.

first, do you find the concept "rights" to be a useful one, in certain
contexts at least?

second, would you mind jotting down your definition of the concept
"liberty".

sincerely,

larry

on 2/20/03 7:05 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I believe this sums up entirely the matter concerning all such
>>>> inalienable rights, which rightly the people themselves must
> defend,
>>>> or else lose them.
>
>>> So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.
>
>> Not at all. I didn't say that. Such rights are morally and inherently
>> inalienable.
>
> Then apparently they can't be alienated, but they can be lost. So
> what's the difference between alienation and loss? What exactly is
> alienation in this context?
>
> AFAIK, alienability of a property or quality is the ability of the
> person in whom it inheres to get rid of it. So to say a right is
> inalienable is to say that even the person having such a right is not
> allowed to get rid of it. That what you mean?
>
>> The only corollary to this is that the immorality of
>> government aggression might deny the exercise of such rights. The gist
>> of which (as the article suggested), people must exercise and defend
>> such rights in the face of such aggression, or else lose the ability
>> to exercise them.
>
> Is that what you meant above? That people have inalienable rights, but
> must exercise & defend them or they become unexercisable, although still
> inalienable and extant, rights?
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:33:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Larry,

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Robert
is constitutionally incapable of presenting an opinion
on most any subject.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> hi, robert,
>
> i'd respond to your questions, below and elsewhere
> about 'rights',
> 'inalienability', morality and such, but it would
> help me greatly in
> attempting to do so if i know more about where you
> are coming from, so,
> two questions for you.
>
> first, do you find the concept "rights" to be a
> useful one, in certain
> contexts at least?
>
> second, would you mind jotting down your definition
> of the concept
> "liberty".
>
> sincerely,
>
> larry
>
> on 2/20/03 7:05 AM, Robert Goodman at
> robgood@bestweb.net wrote:
>
> > "Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I believe this sums up entirely the matter
> concerning all such
> >>>> inalienable rights, which rightly the people
> themselves must
> > defend,
> >>>> or else lose them.
> >
> >>> So obviously they're NOT inalienable after all.
> >
> >> Not at all. I didn't say that. Such rights are
> morally and inherently
> >> inalienable.
> >
> > Then apparently they can't be alienated, but they
> can be lost. So
> > what's the difference between alienation and loss?
> What exactly is
> > alienation in this context?
> >
> > AFAIK, alienability of a property or quality is
> the ability of the
> > person in whom it inheres to get rid of it. So to
> say a right is
> > inalienable is to say that even the person having
> such a right is not
> > allowed to get rid of it. That what you mean?
> >
> >> The only corollary to this is that the immorality
> of
> >> government aggression might deny the exercise of
> such rights. The gist
> >> of which (as the article suggested), people must
> exercise and defend
> >> such rights in the face of such aggression, or
> else lose the ability
> >> to exercise them.
> >
> > Is that what you meant above? That people have
> inalienable rights, but
> > must exercise & defend them or they become
> unexercisable, although still
> > inalienable and extant, rights?
> >
> > In Your Sly Tribe,
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:21:28 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Michelle <libnw@immosys.com>

On 20-Feb-03, Michelle wrote:

M> Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Robert
M> is constitutionally incapable of presenting an opinion
M> on most any subject.

Funny, I don't have any trouble understanding Robert's points, not inferring
some opinions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:02:13 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Robert
> is constitutionally incapable of presenting an opinion
> on most any subject.

Why do you have to be such a jerk about this? Anyway, this got here
before Larry's, so I'll reply via your quote.

> > first, do you find the concept "rights" to be a
> > useful one, in certain
> > contexts at least?

Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always turns out
to be circular.

> > second, would you mind jotting down your definition
> > of the concept
> > "liberty".

Could mean many things, but I'll give the meaning most useful in this
context: absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out. That
state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can start
at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence of
restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
extent, and that state is "liberty". The libertarian's job is to
formulate rules by which to get as close as possible to that condition;
conceivably more than one such ideal state may exist, but if so they're
probably fairly close to each other. The principle of nonaggression is
necessary but not sufficient to reach such a state; a theory of property
is needed to help things along further, and even it may not nail down
all details. As seen in discussions of abortion, infanticide, and
butchery of animals, it also helps to keep in mind considerations of
will that precede all this.

If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on rules
for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against each
other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:22:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net> wrote:
> You replied:
> > Meaning it's immoral to infringe on a person's
> > "natural rights" whether those rights are legally
> > recognized or not.
>
> I have no idea how anyone, including Robert, could
> possibly
> misconstrue your reply -- but my guess is that he
> obviously will.
> Sorry. Your reply was absolutely brilliant, and so I
> have nothing more
> to add. Again, great job!

Morals are kind of a personal thing; they are not
absolute standards held by everyone. Unless you say
they are handed down by God or some kind of force you
can't argue with; I would say that her statement
undermined the natural rights argument rather than
support it.

Ken

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:59:56 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

Check this one out.

http://www.moontruth.com/clips/moontruth.mpg

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Second Amendment

> Frank
>
> > Robert responded, twisting words to suit his fancy as usual:
> > > Meaning it's immoral for someone to alienate them?
>
> Never mind the words of Robert. We have bigger fish to fry.
>
> I have now located on the web irrefutable evidence
> that Nasa faked the moon landings.
>
> Check it out
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~g-b-dix/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
>
> Regards
> Tim
>
> Racing the Night
> Gideon: It feels like the city is watching us
> but, of course, that's not possible
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Second Amendment
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:02:12 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ken!

It's been a while. Glad to see you are still alive and kicking.

Ken Butler wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote to Michele Eilers:
> > I have no idea how anyone, including Robert, could
> > possibly
> > misconstrue your reply -- but my guess is that he
> > obviously will.
> > Sorry. Your reply was absolutely brilliant, and so I
> > have nothing more
> > to add. Again, great job!

You replied:
> Morals are kind of a personal thing; they are not
> absolute standards held by everyone. Unless you say
> they are handed down by God or some kind of force you
> can't argue with; I would say that her statement
> undermined the natural rights argument rather than
> support it.

Natural Law, if supported by scientific history, largely determine
what natural rights might be. Jefferson, Locke et al, clearly meant
that the rights of man are clearly evident in nature itself, largely
as a result of the dependence of civilizations upon either violating
such law, or accepting such law as inviolate.

I suppose you can interject the word "morality" here, although I don't
see how that becomes necessary at this point. True, human morality is
entirely subjective in terms of definition, usually. But maybe not
always. Maybe there is a way to quantify human recorded history in
terms of specific rights, and thereby determine when civilizations
cease to flourish, and rather flounder and self-destruct, based
largely upon the violation of what history reveals as sacrosanct.

Maybe the last major example of that might be the dramatic fall of the
Iron Curtain. In terms of modern history, it happened rather quickly,
and no one really predicted it would happen with such immediate
certainty.

It is historically interesting again, that human rights are again in
the forefront of what occurred as a result of the downfall of decades
of violent human repression and the denial of such natural rights.
China is a ticking time bomb in that regard as we speak, as well as is
North Korea. It just hasn't happened yet. But it will. Civilizations
based upon repression of natural rights are doomed to decline and
fall. Others will certainly rise and take their place elsewhere, as
probably in the United States of America. In which case, the American
civilization will decline and fall. Maybe just as rapidly as the
former Soviet empire. Who knows? I don't have a crystal ball.

I do believe that ultimately natural rights are inviolate and any
government that wishes to violate such rights is ultimately doomed for
destruction, as history has long recorded. I don't believe that Locke
and Jefferson had it very wrong, although admittedly, Jefferson was a
plagiarist and failed in the category of humility in recognizing the
genius of Locke and others at the time.

The larger point here however is that America was founded upon the
presupposition of natural, individual, human rights, as usually
understood at the time from the standpoint of human history. You can't
escape that fact, and including that the US Constitution recognized
such rights as inalienable. Both documents are legally binding. The
first one recognized that we have the obligation to dissolve a union
that inhibits such rights, and second, a document that enshrines them
as the law of the land.

In the current discourse over whether or not the US government has a
moral obligation or right to interfere in another sovereign state, to
promote such a premise, is without question fatally flawed. It assumes
that individuals themselves cannot assert their own rights, insofar as
they are well known in recorded history. History itself shows such
behaviour is itself misguided, and doomed to fail -- and as a
corollary to that, we see the repression of the same human rights in
America today as the end result of such behaviour.

No government has any moral obligation to do anything at all except to
acknowledge natural law in terms of human, individual rights, and to
be operative in defending such rights within its own jurisdiction. The
US federal government is one of the worst offenders of such rights,
and on our own soil! Now we seem to want to export our deplorable
misery using tremendous military force to force everyone else into our
own destitute misery.

History has a good record of such misconduct. Call it Manifest
Destiny, the White Man's Burden, or any other label you choose. You
can't export morality, especially a morally you no longer have
yourself. You lose your morality at the time you decide to force it
upon others against their own will.

I hope some here really do read what I just wrote. I hope I haven't
wasted my time.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:05:33 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, robert, others,

since you were responding to michelle's interjection I'm gonna leave it in
place (almost deleted it).

on 2/20/03 5:02 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Robert
>> is constitutionally incapable of presenting an opinion
>> on most any subject.
>
> Why do you have to be such a jerk about this? Anyway, this got here
> before Larry's, so I'll reply via your quote.

robert, jerk is a masculine term. wouldn't it have been better to have
called her a jerkess. you know, anatomy and all, not to mention PC.
i figure you're not too distressed, since ken and ed checked in defending
you against the "jerkess".

so, with that out of the the way, thank you for responding to my two
questions.

first, two things. you mentioned "theory of property rights" as being
important". thanks for that. in my years of "libertarianism" i've noticed
that most libs think the question was resolved long ago. i own my house, i
own my farm. it's clear, what the hell. that was all settled long ago. no
need to think about property rights. that's been settled. well, as i see
it, it's not nearly damned settled. we libs have been sloths in relation to
a "theory of property rights", with nothing but the status quo to guide us.

second, when you wrote about "relaxation" as a way out of your circular
definition of liberty, my first thought was "bonkers". gotta say, though,
as the concept settled into my mind, at work tonight, it started to resonate
with stuff already there. i gotta thank you for the 'resonance', sending me
off of a track you may not even have intended.

anyway, robert, after reading you, and i did not anticipate this, i ended up
with more questions than answers.

would you bear with me, or humor me, by responding to a few more questions,
interspersed below?
>
>>> first, do you find the concept "rights" to be a
>>> useful one, in certain
>>> contexts at least?
>
> Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always turns out
> to be circular.

i think i understand what you mean by "legal ones", as in the city council
passing an ordinace that i have a right to have folks not park in front of
my driveway. that does grant a right to have access to my own garage. but,
still, there have been all damned sorts of governments in history, and
currently. what about the "legal right" for whites to own black slaves
granted by the powers that were?

do you care to circumscribe "only legal rights", by telling me who can
ligitimatly generate "legal rights". or does any government, any state,
given what they decide, however they do it, generate "legal rights", as the
only source, so you have written?
>
>>> second, would you mind jotting down your definition
>>> of the concept
>>> "liberty".
>
> Could mean many things,

uhh, i was asking you what it means to you, but i figure you answered:

> but I'll give the meaning most useful in this
> context: absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
> beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
> liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out.

you're right, it was circular, and even contradictory. but you've written
an escape clause, below, and it has garnered some interest from me.

> That
> state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can start
> at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others.

like i wrote, robert, "relaxation technique" struck me as bonkers, at first,
not so much now.

> One reaches a point
> somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence of
> restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
> extent, and that state is "liberty".

okay, now i'm really hearing you, in spades!! but what about someone who
doesn't not practice "relaxation techniques", like ted bundy, for instance.
what if the folks who have relaxed to the middle say, "fuck you, teddy",
were gonna hammer you. has teddy's liberty been violated, soley because his
opponents were more relaxed, and powerful?

> The libertarian's job is to
> formulate rules by which to get as close as possible to that condition;
> conceivably more than one such ideal state may exist, but if so they're
> probably fairly close to each other. The principle of nonaggression is
> necessary but not sufficient to reach such a state; a theory of property
> is needed to help things along further, and even it may not nail down
> all details.

again, robert, i swoon at your mention of the fact, as i see it, that a
theory of property rights is a necessary condition, and we libs have fallen
short there, as i see it. but, again, i gotta say, in your very argument,
you used the word theory of property ***RIGHTS****. if that is soley a
question of law "with law government issued" as i understand you - why the
hell do we need a theory, unless it is justice we seek, outside any damn
government law. but justice is a moral concept, right? and ethics don't
apply, so you wrote?

> If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on rules
> for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against each
> other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.

and robert, why would they want to do that? would it be an "ethical good",
given than it would serve both of their interests, with fair play and all?
and with the division and specialization on labor and all, not to mention
that we humans are social animals (who wants to paint a face on a soccer
ball so's to have someone to talk to?).

why would anyone want to seek the (escape from cirularity) liberty you
describe, with relaxation techniques? is there a reason, given the nature
of humans, and the nature of the universe we live in? or do we gotta leave
that up to the "law" givers which call themselves governments, of all
stripes, with no ethical standard to evalute the conclusions with?

>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert

dunno about you, robert. i ain't being sly. i'm speaking my heart, with my
questions.

i beg a reply.

sincerely,

larry
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:18:04 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert

> Why do you have to be such a jerk about this? Anyway, this got
> here before Larry's, so I'll reply via your quote.

Why does she? I will give you a reason.

I think Yoda said it best.

Fear is the path to the dark side.

Regards
Tim

Psalm 22:7
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they
shoot out the lip, they shake the head

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:32:56 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

HEY, YA, TIM!!,

with michelle being the "path to the darkside", i notice you ofered no
damned arguments, or evidecence - just the claim, although you did quote the
bible, and "star wars" as a justifying reference.

sick, "f", with no damed arguments but quoting yoda.

GODD GAWD, FRANK, WHAT THE "F" IS THIS CESSPOOL YOU ARE PRESIDING
OVER???!!!!

SINCERELY,
LARRY

(IT'S NO DAMNED WONDER YOU FIGURE, WITH GAWD'S HELP, THAT YOU FIGURE ALL
HUMANS ARE DEPRAVED, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU GIVE SANCTION TO , AND SPEND TIME
READING THE SICK CRAP ON YOUR "LIBERTAIRAN" LIST.

IF I READ NOTHING BUT THE CRAP ON "YOUR" LIST, I'D WANNA SLIT MY WRISTS,
TOO.

CHRIST, FRANK, I ONLY BEEN HERE FOR A WEEK, AND ALL I'VE READ IS PSYCOHSIS.

I ONLY SIGNED ON, FRANK, CAUSE YOU ANNONCED YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE CERTAIN
PRIVATES PUBLIC, ABOUT RELIGION, AND FAITH.

HEY, FRANK, WITH YOUR THREAT, GIT IT ON, OR I WILL!!!!!

I AIN'T GOT MUCH TIME LEFT TO SWIM IN THIS CESSPOOL OF FOLKS WHO DO NOT HAVE
THE SLIGHTEST UNDERSTANDING OF LIBERTY.

SO, FRANK, ENEMIES AND FRIENDS - YOU GOTTA CHOOSE. CIRCULATION IS THE GOAL
OF CNN AND RUPERT MURDOCH. I HOPE YOU'R NOT ONE OF THOSE, THOUGH THE
EVICENCE INDICATES IT.

are you looking for ratings, or truth, frank? no gawd damned way you can
have it both ways, given the state of the Earth, and the state of
humaninity.

with all of my heart, dumbshit that i might be,

larry


on 2/21/03 2:18 AM, Tim Bedding at tim.bedding@polyhedra.com wrote:

> Robert
>
>> Why do you have to be such a jerk about this? Anyway, this got
>> here before Larry's, so I'll reply via your quote.
>
> Why does she? I will give you a reason.
>
> I think Yoda said it best.
>
> Fear is the path to the dark side.
>
> Regards
> Tim
>
> Psalm 22:7
> All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they
> shoot out the lip, they shake the head
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:06:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ed!

Ed Fischang wrote to Michelle Eilers...

Michelle wrote:
> M> Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Robert
> M> is constitutionally incapable of presenting an opinion
> M> on most any subject.

You replied:
> Funny, I don't have any trouble understanding Robert's points, not
inferring
> some opinions.

Sadly, I wish I could agree with that. I've given up playing his mind
and word games, frankly. A long time ago. But, he is welcome to them,
for those of you who may still be interested -- go for it.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:10:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Robert Goodman...

Robert Goodman wrote:
> > Why do you have to be such a jerk about this? Anyway, this got
> > here before Larry's, so I'll reply via your quote.

You replied:
> Why does she? I will give you a reason.
> I think Yoda said it best.
> Fear is the path to the dark side.

Now this REALLY says a lot -- or so to speak! It likely says nothing
at all. Who knows? and, Who cares?

Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:32:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Tim Bedding...

> with michelle being the "path to the darkside", i notice you ofered no
> damned arguments, or evidecence - just the claim, although you did quote
the
> bible, and "star wars" as a justifying reference.
> sick, "f", with no damed arguments but quoting yoda.

Yes, I too noticed the passive transition into irrelevance and
nonsense.

> GODD GAWD, FRANK, WHAT THE "F" IS THIS CESSPOOL YOU ARE PRESIDING
> OVER???!!!!

Don't blame me! For crying outsold, I only take responsibility over
the words I write for myself here! That is exactly what YOU claimed to
do on idaholibertarians, right? That's what I do on Liberty Northwest.
I speak for myself, and everyone else here has the same opportunity.
I'll keep doing that as long as I am able... hope you will do the
same! I really don't "preside over it" so much as responding to it
when I have the propensity to do so. Some of it is good. Some of it
'not so good'. You choose. That's how it has been here for over a
decade now.

What else can I say? You said so yourself when setting up
IdahoLibertarians. What do you really want me to do? Start telling
people when their opinions are no longer acceptable and are no longer
welcome here? I don't think you can really say such a thing, now can
you? If I don't agree with YOU, you are out of here. Same goes for
Tim Bedding, or Robert Goodman, or Ed Fischange (who has been here
about as long as I have)!

I'm asking you to be just as consistent here as you claim such
consistency on idaholibertarians. You own your own words around here.
This is the 'real world' as I see it Larry. This is the real world
that you have to deal with each and every day. At least here, everyone
has a free choice to participate, or not to participate.

You are probably more at 'home' on THIS forum, than you probably
realize.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:10:52 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Now this REALLY says a lot -- or so to speak! It likely says
> nothing at all. Who knows? and, Who cares?

Certainly you have never cared.

You claim to be a Christian and yet that all collapses
into mindless mud-slinging when you get defensive over
your claims becoming total and utter nonsense.

Then you have the utter gall and hypocrisy to accuse
the US of aggression.

It is disgusting.

Regards
Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:26:24 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote in part:

> >>> first, do you find the concept "rights" to be a
> >>> useful one, in certain
> >>> contexts at least?

> > Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always turns
out
> > to be circular.

> i think i understand what you mean by "legal ones", as in the city
council
> passing an ordinace that i have a right to have folks not park in
front of
> my driveway. that does grant a right to have access to my own garage.
but,
> still, there have been all damned sorts of governments in history, and
> currently. what about the "legal right" for whites to own black
slaves
> granted by the powers that were?

I said the concept was useful, not that I liked every instance of its
use. Like guns.

> do you care to circumscribe "only legal rights", by telling me who can
> ligitimatly generate "legal rights". or does any government, any
state,
> given what they decide, however they do it, generate "legal rights",
as the
> only source, so you have written?

Anyone willing to enforce them, or any body whose recognition of them
has practical consequences, in whatever context. So, for instance, in a
rugby match a team may have a right to a try at goal.

> >>> second, would you mind jotting down your definition
> >>> of the concept
> >>> "liberty".

> > but I'll give the meaning most useful in this
> > context: absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
> > beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
> > liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out.

> you're right, it was circular, and even contradictory. but you've
written
> an escape clause, below, and it has garnered some interest from me.

> > That
> > state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can
start
> > at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others.

> like i wrote, robert, "relaxation technique" struck me as bonkers, at
first,
> not so much now.

I hope you understood "relaxation" as a method of analysis sometimes
used in physics wherein a system is held at an extreme and then allowed
to relax from that point and find where it settles.

> > One reaches a point
> > somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence
of
> > restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
> > extent, and that state is "liberty".

> okay, now i'm really hearing you, in spades!! but what about someone
who
> doesn't not practice "relaxation techniques", like ted bundy, for
instance.
> what if the folks who have relaxed to the middle say, "fuck you,
teddy",
> were gonna hammer you. has teddy's liberty been violated, soley
because his
> opponents were more relaxed, and powerful?

Yes.

> > The libertarian's job is to
> > formulate rules by which to get as close as possible to that
condition;
> > conceivably more than one such ideal state may exist, but if so
they're
> > probably fairly close to each other. The principle of nonaggression
is
> > necessary but not sufficient to reach such a state; a theory of
property
> > is needed to help things along further, and even it may not nail
down
> > all details.

> again, robert, i swoon at your mention of the fact, as i see it, that
a
> theory of property rights is a necessary condition, and we libs have
fallen
> short there, as i see it. but, again, i gotta say, in your very
argument,
> you used the word theory of property ***RIGHTS****.

Actually if you look closely enough at the above, I said "rheory of
property" without the word "rights". Seems to me the word "rights" is
superfluous there, and might even do mischief.

> if that is soley a
> question of law "with law government issued" as i understand you - why
the
> hell do we need a theory, unless it is justice we seek, outside any
damn
> government law. but justice is a moral concept, right? and ethics
don't
> apply, so you wrote?

We were seeking liberty, and a theory of property gets us closer to
liberty than not having one. No pre-conceived ethics are necessary,
only a determination to figure out a state of affairs that minimizes
constraints between willful entities. I guess I should have added that
there are practical concerns, to eliminate trivial solutions that result
in an impracticable or extremely impoverished world. Having a system in
which people own certain things is very helpful in this regard.

> > If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on
rules
> > for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against
each
> > other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.

> and robert, why would they want to do that? would it be an "ethical
good",
> given than it would serve both of their interests, with fair play and
all?
> and with the division and specialization on labor and all, not to
mention
> that we humans are social animals (who wants to paint a face on a
soccer
> ball so's to have someone to talk to?).

Who cares if it's an ethical good, as long as it does serve their
interests? Over time, they will decide it is an ethical good for that
reason. I'm sure that's where human ethics have come from -- attempts
at minimization of strife. So do manners, for that matter.

> why would anyone want to seek the (escape from cirularity) liberty you
> describe, with relaxation techniques?

To avoid tsooris (trouble). Liberty is not the only way to do so, but
the most effective IMO.

> is there a reason, given the nature
> of humans, and the nature of the universe we live in? or do we gotta
leave
> that up to the "law" givers which call themselves governments, of all
> stripes, with no ethical standard to evalute the conclusions with?

Leave it to wise men. I postulate that there is a solution, and it's a
matter of finding it. So far society seems oriented toward minimizing
tsooris thru some combination of (compromise between) democracy,
tradition, and liberty.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:05:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
> Robert
> > is constitutionally incapable of presenting an
> opinion
> > on most any subject.
>
> Why do you have to be such a jerk about this?

Well you've been asked those same questions before and
refused to answer them. Indeed, you usually refuse to
answer questions people ask you regarding your
opinions. I just assumed that, as usual, you'd ignore
Larry's post.

However, I am pleased to see you did deign to explain
some of your opinions in response to another poster's
questions. Perhaps you are turning over a new leaf.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:27:29 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well you've been asked those same questions before and
> refused to answer them. Indeed, you usually refuse to
> answer questions people ask you regarding your
> opinions.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone with THAT complaint about me!
Possibly I was asked a question I took to be demeaning, or one I had no
opinion about, or one that would just lead around in the same circles
I've been in over & over.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:52:51 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, robert, others,

one last round, re a few questions. i truly do want to understand
where you're coming from.

first, i seem to recall that you have been a libertarian political
candidate in the past. this is a bit redundant, given what you
have already written, but i take it you see liberty as a personal
value, and you would like it if others came to see its value, as
well. right? wrong? (candidate or not).

now, i'll intersperse one or two, below:

on 2/21/03 6:26 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

>> "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote in part:
>>
>> what about the "legal right" for whites to own black
>> slaves granted by the powers that were?
>
> I said the concept was useful, not that I liked every instance of its
> use. Like guns.

okay, then, you write that rights only have meaning in a legal context.
i understand what you are saying. then you write that does not mean you
like every instance of legal rights (eg slavery).

when it comes to legal rights, then, how do you go about determining which
ones you like, and which ones you don't? why, for instance, do you "not
like" slavery?
>
>> do you care to circumscribe "only legal rights", by telling me who can
>> ligitimatly generate "legal rights". or does any government, any
>> state, given what they decide, however they do it, generate "legal
rights",
>> as the only source, so you have written?
>
> Anyone willing to enforce them, or any body whose recognition of them
> has practical consequences, in whatever context.

so, you and i and many others may "not like" the fact that jews had no
"legal right" to live in nazi germany, but with rights only having meaning
in a legal context, no *rights* of jews were violated when the nazis
gassed 'em - though, i take it, horror is still an appropriate response?

> So, for instance, in a
> rugby match a team may have a right to a try at goal.

within the context of the established rules, i take it you are saying.
but the german jews were excluded from trying for a goal, or even
continuing to live, given the "legal rights" - rules - as established in
nazi germany. we may not like it, but those, indeed, were the rules of
the game in germany at the time, with no "legal rights" granted to jews.
hence, the problem must be solved in some other way, than by a vacant
appeal to rights which has not been legally granted by the specific rule
makers??
>
> Actually if you look closely enough at the above, I said "theory of
> property" without the word "rights". Seems to me the word "rights" is
> superfluous there, and might even do mischief.

yup. sorry for putting a word in your mouth.

>> is there a reason, given the nature of humans, and the nature
>> of the universe we live in? or do we gotta
>> leave that up to the "law" givers which call themselves governments,
>> of all stripes, with no ethical standard to evalute the conclusions with?

> Leave it to wise men.

damn, that scares me. what did you really mean to communicate here?

> I postulate that there is a solution, and it's a
> matter of finding it.

and the problem i raised, to which you postulate that there *is* a solution,
is the problem generated when there is no way to evaluate the "law" of the
law givers, without an external standand to measure 'em by, with ethics
excluded by you.

would you care to speculate about your postulated solution to the question,
though it may not have yet been fully discovered?

> So far society seems oriented toward minimizing
> tsooris thru some combination of (compromise between) democracy,
> tradition, and liberty.

well, yes and no. there have been one helluva a lot of failures, with more
to come, it seems.

and besides, WHY? should folks try to minimize trouble? why should that
be a goal, afterall? WHY? and even if there is an answer for that why,
another one arises immedialty - HOW? How do we get to the goal?

it seems to me that both the why, and the how are ethical questions.
is it "good" to minimize trouble? and is it "good" to find the best
solutions to "how" we can find? and, is "how" somehow related to the
existing nature of human beings, and the nature of the universe in which
we live, or is it just an arbitary thing generated by rule givers, and
"wise men".
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:32:34 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:

> i take it you see liberty as a personal
> value, and you would like it if others came to see its value, as
> well. right?

Yes.

> okay, then, you write that rights only have meaning in a legal
context.
> i understand what you are saying. then you write that does not mean
you
> like every instance of legal rights (eg slavery).

Yes.

> when it comes to legal rights, then, how do you go about determining
which
> ones you like, and which ones you don't? why, for instance, do you
"not
> like" slavery?

Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I can
conceive of.

> so, you and i and many others may "not like" the fact that jews had no
> "legal right" to live in nazi germany, but with rights only having
meaning
> in a legal context, no *rights* of jews were violated when the nazis
> gassed 'em - though, i take it, horror is still an appropriate
response?

Sure.

> within the context of the established rules, i take it you are saying.
> but the german jews were excluded from trying for a goal, or even
> continuing to live, given the "legal rights" - rules - as established
in
> nazi germany. we may not like it, but those, indeed, were the rules
of
> the game in germany at the time, with no "legal rights" granted to
jews.
> hence, the problem must be solved in some other way, than by a vacant
> appeal to rights which has not been legally granted by the specific
rule
> makers??

Exactly.

> >> is there a reason, given the nature of humans, and the nature
> >> of the universe we live in? or do we gotta
> >> leave that up to the "law" givers which call themselves
governments,
> >> of all stripes, with no ethical standard to evalute the conclusions
with?

> > Leave it to wise men.

> damn, that scares me. what did you really mean to communicate here?

That it takes lots of consideration.

> and the problem i raised, to which you postulate that there *is* a
solution,
> is the problem generated when there is no way to evaluate the "law" of
the
> law givers, without an external standand to measure 'em by, with
ethics
> excluded by you.

> would you care to speculate about your postulated solution to the
question,
> though it may not have yet been fully discovered?

The solution, very approximately stated, is that people get along best
when they leave each other alone.

> and besides, WHY? should folks try to minimize trouble?

Because trouble is by definition bad. OK, if you're a masochist or a
cat, you like pain, but most people dislike it.

> another one arises immedialty - HOW? How do we get to the goal?

Mostly by showing other people what wise men have figured out.

> it seems to me that both the why, and the how are ethical questions.

Maybe. I consider them just matters of common sense. People tend to
arrive at these solutions pretty easily when there are only a few people
in about equal status, but get confused about the issues when there are
billions of people in different circumstances and born at different
times. Even put 2 fairly dumb animals together and almost always they
figure out to stop fighting each other, as has been replicated in
household after household. Out in the alley it's a different story, at
least with cats; see below.

> is it "good" to minimize trouble? and is it "good" to find the best
> solutions to "how" we can find? and, is "how" somehow related to the
> existing nature of human beings, and the nature of the universe in
which
> we live, or is it just an arbitary thing generated by rule givers, and
> "wise men".

Now I'm confused. How could ANYTHING NOT be related to the nature of
the universe? And how could anything relating to human beings not be
related to their nature? I suspect the reason cats fight is that
they're wired for a terrific endorphin rush when they do so; it looks
awful to us, but I think cats experience ecstasy by fighting. Even in
sexual intercourse, a cat's penis has barbs that cause pain that
apparently is necessary for release of progestins, demonstrating that
pain is intimately connected with pleasure for them.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:36:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I suspect the reason cats
> fight is that
> they're wired for a terrific endorphin rush when
> they do so; it looks
> awful to us, but I think cats experience ecstasy by
> fighting. Even in
> sexual intercourse, a cat's penis has barbs that
> cause pain that
> apparently is necessary for release of progestins,
> demonstrating that
> pain is intimately connected with pleasure for them.

Actually, cats fight because they are territorial. And
it's only a fraction of cats who do the vast majority
of the fighting - unneutered toms who are fighting
over females and/or keeping other toms out of their
territory. This behavior is hardly unusual. Many,
many species of animals are territorial, with the
males fighting over females and land (humans, for
instance).

Of course, cats likely do get at "adrenaline rush"
when they're fighting (just as a human chased by a
bear would get an adrenaline rush), but that hardly
correlates to "liking" pain.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:04:09 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

so, robert,

i gave you all the rope necessary to hang yourself with.

i would not have done that for any human who claimed ted bundy's
"liberty" was abridged by those who stopped him, but that i wanted
to give you the rope.

now, i'll give you a day to retract anything you want to, otherwise,
you get a nuclear bomb on your dumb-shit head, given that you claim
to be participating on the battlefield of ideas.

you're a sick-fuck, robert, defending ted bundy's liberty, as you did
previously, in relation to rapists.

thanks, robert, for giving me the proximate quotes from an intelligent
dumbshit.

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:21:28 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

good gawd, folks,

the subject is morality, rights and liberty (re humans).

and already we are fighting like cats over the fighting of cats.

and this thread started out as "second ammendement".

good gawd, no wonder we get no damned where, with diversion as good a
way to "win" an argument as any.

so, michelle, what do your cats think about u.s. government bonds?

i figure they're opinion is far more valuable than bill's.

cats fight with good reason, like defending their potential fuck.

but humans? gawd damned if i can detect a reason, even with nukes,
unless it's fear of a short dick.

only one week here, i'm damned sick of the cesspool. we humans are
far sicker than cats.

gimmie a cat fight anytime. i'm sick of human bullshit, especially as it is
represented on this list, with teddy bundy having his right to liberty
unfairly abridged, so says robert.

fuck! i'd take cat fighting any damned time, over the bullshit of robert,
lowell, ken, gary, bill and others.

puking,

larry

on 2/21/03 10:36 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> I suspect the reason cats
>> fight is that
>> they're wired for a terrific endorphin rush when
>> they do so; it looks
>> awful to us, but I think cats experience ecstasy by
>> fighting. Even in
>> sexual intercourse, a cat's penis has barbs that
>> cause pain that
>> apparently is necessary for release of progestins,
>> demonstrating that
>> pain is intimately connected with pleasure for them.
>
> Actually, cats fight because they are territorial. And
> it's only a fraction of cats who do the vast majority
> of the fighting - unneutered toms who are fighting
> over females and/or keeping other toms out of their
> territory. This behavior is hardly unusual. Many,
> many species of animals are territorial, with the
> males fighting over females and land (humans, for
> instance).
>
> Of course, cats likely do get at "adrenaline rush"
> when they're fighting (just as a human chased by a
> bear would get an adrenaline rush), but that hardly
> correlates to "liking" pain.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:28:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Now this REALLY says a lot -- or so to speak! It likely says
> > nothing at all. Who knows? and, Who cares?

You responded:
> Certainly you have never cared.

As usual, Tim, you have taken what I wrote totally out of the context
in which it was written. Let me try and refresh your memory, to wit:

Robert Goodman wrote:
> > Why do you have to be such a jerk about this? Anyway, this got
> > here before Larry's, so I'll reply via your quote.

You replied:
> Why does she? I will give you a reason.
> I think Yoda said it best.
> Fear is the path to the dark side.

So Tim, what have *I* never cared about in the context of this
conversation? Basically it boils down to the fact that what you wrote
is meaningless "one-liner" gibberish that has nothing substantial to
add to the conversation at hand. If you choose to post by
"one-liners", then at least put them into some appropriate context, or
they become meaningless and a waste of bandwidth.

> You claim to be a Christian and yet that all collapses
> into mindless mud-slinging when you get defensive over
> your claims becoming total and utter nonsense.

Interesting that you try and dredge up my religious beliefs which have
no bearing at all upon objecting to your rather cavalier use of
nonsensical one-liners not congruent with the subject matter at hand.

> Then you have the utter gall and hypocrisy to accuse
> the US of aggression.

And, how does this fit in any way at all to what I wrote pertaining to
your what "Yoda" said -- which is what I was, after all, responding
to, and still do... who cares?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:24:04 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> so, robert,
>
> i gave you all the rope necessary to hang yourself with.
>
> i would not have done that for any human who claimed ted bundy's
> "liberty" was abridged by those who stopped him, but that i wanted
> to give you the rope.
>
> now, i'll give you a day to retract anything you want to, otherwise,
> you get a nuclear bomb on your dumb-shit head, given that you claim
> to be participating on the battlefield of ideas.
>
> you're a sick-fuck, robert, defending ted bundy's liberty, as you did
> previously, in relation to rapists.
>
> thanks, robert, for giving me the proximate quotes from an intelligent
> dumbshit.
>
>
> larry
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh...WTF?! Anybody else follow this thread?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:20:47 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> Actually, cats fight because they are territorial.

But how is that territoriality mediated physiologically? Territoriality
is an effect, not a cause -- at least if we're discussing EFFICIENT
cause (Aristotelian sense). You're writing teleologically here (final
cause -- Aristotelian sense).

> And
> it's only a fraction of cats who do the vast majority
> of the fighting - unneutered toms who are fighting
> over females and/or keeping other toms out of their
> territory.

What about the females that fight?

> Of course, cats likely do get at "adrenaline rush"
> when they're fighting (just as a human chased by a
> bear would get an adrenaline rush), but that hardly
> correlates to "liking" pain.

Then why do they do it, and seem uncomfortable when they're restrained
from doing it? I suspect at least dopamine (m-hydroxy-nor-adrenaline)
operating here, not just adrenaline -- probably endorphin too. Others
have noted apparently masochistic cat behavior.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: 21 Feb 2003 20:45:21 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 23:36, Michelle wrote:
> I suspect the reason cats
> > fight is that
> > they're wired for a terrific endorphin rush when
> > they do so; it looks
> > awful to us, but I think cats experience ecstasy by
> > fighting. Even in
> > sexual intercourse, a cat's penis has barbs that
> > cause pain that
> > apparently is necessary for release of progestins,
> > demonstrating that
> > pain is intimately connected with pleasure for them.
>
> Actually, cats fight because they are territorial. And
> it's only a fraction of cats who do the vast majority
> of the fighting - unneutered toms who are fighting
> over females and/or keeping other toms out of their
> territory. This behavior is hardly unusual. Many,
> many species of animals are territorial, with the
> males fighting over females and land (humans, for
> instance).

A related item ...off in the world of ants ...
A "young" ant colony's scouts (long range foragers) meet up with the
scouts of another colony. The following day, the young colony's scouts
will return to the location, even if it means fighting the others. A
"mature" colony -one several years old- will go the other way the next
day. Now, what I find interesting is that this behavior develops over a
period of many years, despite the fact that the individual ants will
live only a year or so at best. Of course, there is no hierarchy in the
world of ants, nobody in charge ... the epitome of anarchist philosophy.

> Of course, cats likely do get at "adrenaline rush"
> when they're fighting (just as a human chased by a
> bear would get an adrenaline rush), but that hardly
> correlates to "liking" pain.

Oh I dunno, many humans experience an adrenaline rush in combat or sport
"fighting" that they find quite pleasurable. I can easily conceive of
the adrenaline rush being taken as a positive experience for animals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:32:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > Of course, cats likely do get at "adrenaline rush"
> > when they're fighting (just as a human chased by a
> > bear would get an adrenaline rush), but that
> hardly
> > correlates to "liking" pain.
>
> Oh I dunno, many humans experience an adrenaline
> rush in combat or sport
> "fighting" that they find quite pleasurable. I can
> easily conceive of
> the adrenaline rush being taken as a positive
> experience for animals.

But it's the "adrenaline rush" that humans or animals
enjoy, not pain per se. If someone accidentally steps
on my cat's tail, he most assuredly does not like that.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:42:37 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert,

you streniously object, at every opportunity, to those who bring ethics
into the discussion of politics.

> Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always turns
> out to be circular.

you dismiss the concept of rights in so far as others claim an ethical root
for them (even though it's clear "rights", and right v. wrong are clearly
associated, even in relation to word derivation).

you allow that the word "rights" is a useful one, but only in so far as
it is used in the context of government law, WHATEVER that law my be, even
if the law grants the "right" to own slaves, that "right" is still exempt
from ethical examination, so you have claimed - arguing that to apply ethics
to such questions is "circular".

>> when it comes to legal rights, then, how do you go about determining
>> which ones you like, and which ones you don't? why, for instance, do
you
>> "not like" slavery?

> Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I can
> conceive of.

well, robert, your above argument is pure sophistry, given your more
fundamental claims.

first, you define liberty as:

>absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
>beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>liberty.

so, given your primary definition, slave owners are just exercising their
liberty, and they also have a "right" granted by "legal authorities".
dunno why you should object, or even what grounds you can stand on *to*
object, since, with your arguments, you have excluded *any* ethical standard
as a means of evaluation.

but you do, anyway, object to slavery, because you "don't like it".

and, when backed into the corner of your own absurd arguments, not only do
you write "i don't like it", you say this:

> Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I can
> conceive of.

now, robert, in that sentence, you change, entirely, your definition of
liberty. that ain't fair, robert. in fact it is pure bullshit on your
part. above you are using liberty to exclude slavery, when your primary
definition includes ted bundy and slaveholders.

not only do you switch definitions in mid-stream, but you smuggle ethics in
the back door, with your alternate definition of liberty. you imply
liberty is a ***good*** to be persued. by you own damned arguments, robert,
you have no grounds upon which to imply good or bad. that's bringing ethics
to the table.

you imply liberty is a *good* to be persued, and slavery is a *bad* to be
avoided, in defense of youR alternate definition of liberty.

blatant, convoluted sophistry, robert. you outgha be embarassed to the
quick, at this point, but i ain't done with ya yet.

you wrote:

>If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on rules
>for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against each
>other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.

wait a "f" minute. again, you switch definitions of liberty. first you
claim liberty is abridged by rules, even in relation to ted bundy. and
then you claim minimizing "interference against each other" would be seeking
liberty!! rotflmao!!, at your convoulted, irrational bullshit.

you even imply minimizing "interference" would be a **good**, AGAIN
SMUGGLING ETHICS IN VIA THE BACK DOOR.

you define liberty, below, with two self-contradictory definitions:

>absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
>beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out. That
>state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can start
>at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
>somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence of
>restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
>extent, and that state is "liberty".

first, you define liberty as absence of **all** restraint, and then you
define it as **restraint** to just the right extent. given that, you figure
you get to switch back and forth any damned time you want - claming that any
restraint on ted bundy abridges his liberty, and claiming slavery should be
restrained because it promotes your alternate, mutually exclusive,
definition of liberty.

i'd claim you were a dummy, but only a real smart human could attempt to
pull off double-think like that. you're no dummy, you're just an asshole
with something to prove. maybe you don't think you are as smart as you are,
or maybe you think your dick is too short. either way, i figure you ought
to seek counseling.

on 2/21/03 9:32 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

i wrote"
>> is it "good" to minimize trouble? and is it "good" to find the best
>> solutions to "how" we can find? and, is "how" somehow related to the
>> existing nature of human beings, and the nature of the universe in
>> which we live, or is it just an arbitary thing generated by rule givers,
>> and "wise men".

robert wrote:
> Now I'm confused. How could ANYTHING NOT be related to the nature of
> the universe? And how could anything relating to human beings not be
> related to their nature?

The solution, very approximately stated, is that people get along best
when they leave each other alone.

WHY IS THAT, ROBERT? YOU SEEM TO BE ARGUING THAT 'IS' IMPLIES 'OUGHT'?

SEEKING YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS A ****GOOD***** SO YOU IMPLY, WHILE
CLAIMING THE CONCEPT OF **GOOD** HAS NO RELEVANCE.

>> and besides, WHY? should folks try to minimize trouble?

>Because trouble is by definition bad.

BAD? GOOD? ROBERT, SMART FUCK, YOU JUST MADE AN ETHICAL STATEMENT!!!,
CONTRADICTING EVERY DAMN THING YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THE IRRELEVANCE AND
CIRCULARTIY OF ETHICS.

BUT YOU DO THAT, OFTEN, EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I'M EMBARASSED FOR YOU,
IF YOU'RE NOT.

if nature and the universe have an identity, and humans do too, as you
recognize with your "how could anything not be related", there is an
"ought" in the "is".

if you want to stay alive, don't jump off a cliff. it's a natural law.

and for humans, liberty is a natural law. abridging your second definition
of liberty is like jumping off a cliff. it gets we humans nothing but
"trouble", death, destruction, and even extinction. it's a NATURAL LAW,
given the nature of the universe, and the nature of humans.

unless you get you head out of your "i'm smarter than you" ass, with
sophistry to prove it, this is the last damned time i will respond to you.

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:28:05 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:

> you streniously object, at every opportunity, to those who bring
ethics
> into the discussion of politics.

No, I only object when they appear to be making factual claims based on
ethics. Nothing wrong with ethics in politics! Just don't mke ethical
statements and then think you've proved something, or given a reason to
convince people whose ethics differ.

> > Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always
turns
> > out to be circular.

> you dismiss the concept of rights in so far as others claim an ethical
root
> for them (even though it's clear "rights", and right v. wrong are
clearly
> associated, even in relation to word derivation).

Why the "even though"? Something about the connection between "right" &
"rights" that's relevant yet not obvious?

> you allow that the word "rights" is a useful one, but only in so far
as
> it is used in the context of government law, WHATEVER that law my be,

And not only gov't law, but even in games, contracts, or any other
context where rules are in play.

> even
> if the law grants the "right" to own slaves, that "right" is still
exempt
> from ethical examination, so you have claimed - arguing that to apply
ethics
> to such questions is "circular".

When did I claim it was exempt from ethical examination? All I'm saying
is that it's pretty stupid to post something here like, "Slavery is
unethical", or, "Taxes are evil". It's a goddamn libertarian discussion
group, like you think you're saying something new?! So if someone's
going to make assertions like that, I want to know what's new; like have
you discovered a way to PROVE it?

> >> when it comes to legal rights, then, how do you go about
determining
> >> which ones you like, and which ones you don't? why, for instance,
do you
> >> "not like" slavery?

> > Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I
can
> > conceive of.

> well, robert, your above argument is pure sophistry, given your more
> fundamental claims.

> first, you define liberty as:

> >absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
> >beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
> >liberty.

> so, given your primary definition, slave owners are just exercising
their
> liberty, and they also have a "right" granted by "legal authorities".
> dunno why you should object, or even what grounds you can stand on
*to*
> object, since, with your arguments, you have excluded *any* ethical
standard
> as a means of evaluation.

Because if you have slavery, some people are restrained more than
necessary for their own maximal exercise of liberty, duh!

> but you do, anyway, object to slavery, because you "don't like it".

> and, when backed into the corner of your own absurd arguments, not
only do
> you write "i don't like it", you say this:

> > Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I
can
> > conceive of.

> now, robert, in that sentence, you change, entirely, your definition
of
> liberty. that ain't fair, robert. in fact it is pure bullshit on
your
> part. above you are using liberty to exclude slavery, when your
primary
> definition includes ted bundy and slaveholders.

Huh? Restraining Ted Bundy leads closer to liberty, because it allows
others to exercise more liberty.

> not only do you switch definitions in mid-stream, but you smuggle
ethics in
> the back door, with your alternate definition of liberty. you imply
> liberty is a ***good*** to be persued.

I never said otherwise. Actually what I said was that affairs should be
arranged to minimize trouble, and most willful entities prefer to avoid
trouble.

> by you own damned arguments, robert,
> you have no grounds upon which to imply good or bad. that's bringing
ethics
> to the table.

All I did was assume that most people want to avoid trouble. The only
ethics involved is that I'm a nice enough guy to suggest to other people
how to avoid trouble. That much ethics I can hardly avoid carrying
around. You want to avoid trouble, you restrain Bundy.

> you imply liberty is a *good* to be persued, and slavery is a *bad* to
be
> avoided, in defense of youR alternate definition of liberty.

Liberty seems to minimize trouble, and few would think avoiding trouble
is not a good to be pursued. Sure, there are some masochists out there,
as I pointed out, and some animals seem to be wired to pursue & enjoy
trouble.

> blatant, convoluted sophistry, robert. you outgha be embarassed to
the
> quick, at this point, but i ain't done with ya yet.

> you wrote:

> >If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on rules
> >for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against
each
> >other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.

> wait a "f" minute. again, you switch definitions of liberty. first
you
> claim liberty is abridged by rules, even in relation to ted bundy.
and
> then you claim minimizing "interference against each other" would be
seeking
> liberty!! rotflmao!!, at your convoulted, irrational bullshit.

How is that bullshit? The idea is to adopt such rules that are
minimally restrictive overall. Absolute freedom of action for everyone
is impossible, so you try to figure out what rules to have that will
allow the greatest freedom.

> you even imply minimizing "interference" would be a **good**, AGAIN
> SMUGGLING ETHICS IN VIA THE BACK DOOR.

When did I ever say ethics could be divorced from all considerations?
As soon as you start arguing what's best for society, the very fact that
you care to argue it shows ethical consideration. I said you can't
PROVE ethics. But you can surely hypothesize the best means to certain
ends. If you ask me how to get to a certain restaurant, I might be able
to give you good directions based on my knowledge and guesses about
traffic, but that's no guarantee the food will be good there.

> you define liberty, below, with two self-contradictory definitions:

> >absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
> >beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
> >liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out.
That
> >state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can
start
> >at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
> >somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence
of
> >restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
> >extent, and that state is "liberty".

> first, you define liberty as absence of **all** restraint, and then
you
> define it as **restraint** to just the right extent. given that, you
figure
> you get to switch back and forth any damned time you want - claming
that any
> restraint on ted bundy abridges his liberty, and claiming slavery
should be
> restrained because it promotes your alternate, mutually exclusive,
> definition of liberty.

The trouble is that the word is used in different ways, as I wrote
before, and I tried to pick the one you most likely wanted the answer
to, even though it be defined in terms of the other. Probably I should
use 2 terms -- freedom of the individual, and a society of liberty. A
society of liberty would maximize the total of the freedom of all the
individuals in it, but in doing so has to restrain their individual
freedom to some extent.

It's like mapping territories, if you want to bring in territoriality
from the cat sub-thread. We could have no boundaries, and then fight
everywhere. Or we could try to draw boundaries as precisely as
possible. Theoretically everywhere could be mapped as inside one
territory or another, which would maximize liberty because there'd be no
grey areas inviting fights, and only infinitesimally thin lines between,
so as not to unnecessarily restrict freedom.

> i'd claim you were a dummy, but only a real smart human could attempt
to
> pull off double-think like that. you're no dummy, you're just an
asshole
> with something to prove. maybe you don't think you are as smart as
you are,
> or maybe you think your dick is too short. either way, i figure you
ought
> to seek counseling.

Why do you have to be insulting about this? We're just discussing
ideas, and you seem to take it personally.

> >> is it "good" to minimize trouble? and is it "good" to find the
best
> >> solutions to "how" we can find? and, is "how" somehow related to
the
> >> existing nature of human beings, and the nature of the universe in
> >> which we live, or is it just an arbitary thing generated by rule
givers,
> >> and "wise men".

> > Now I'm confused. How could ANYTHING NOT be related to the nature
of
> > the universe? And how could anything relating to human beings not
be
> > related to their nature?

> The solution, very approximately stated, is that people get along best
> when they leave each other alone.

> WHY IS THAT, ROBERT? YOU SEEM TO BE ARGUING THAT 'IS' IMPLIES
'OUGHT'?

It's an observation. If people ought not to get along, then they should
ignore this advice. I can't prove people ought to get along. I can't
prove life "shouldn't" be hell. But if you examine people's actions,
they seem to want to avoid trouble. Sometimes they make bad decisions
in that regard, and I can advise as to better decisions.

> SEEKING YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS A ****GOOD***** SO YOU IMPLY, WHILE
> CLAIMING THE CONCEPT OF **GOOD** HAS NO RELEVANCE.

> >> and besides, WHY? should folks try to minimize trouble?

> >Because trouble is by definition bad.

> BAD? GOOD? ROBERT, SMART FUCK, YOU JUST MADE AN ETHICAL
STATEMENT!!!,
> CONTRADICTING EVERY DAMN THING YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THE IRRELEVANCE
AND
> CIRCULARTIY OF ETHICS.

> BUT YOU DO THAT, OFTEN, EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I'M EMBARASSED FOR
YOU,
> IF YOU'RE NOT.

Is it not obvious that people prefer a shoe on their foot to a boot to
the head?

> if nature and the universe have an identity, and humans do too, as you
> recognize with your "how could anything not be related", there is an
> "ought" in the "is".

> if you want to stay alive, don't jump off a cliff. it's a natural
law.

> and for humans, liberty is a natural law. abridging your second
definition
> of liberty is like jumping off a cliff. it gets we humans nothing but
> "trouble", death, destruction, and even extinction. it's a NATURAL
LAW,
> given the nature of the universe, and the nature of humans.

If you state it like that, it's fine. It's based on observation &
experiment, not apodictic.

> unless you get you head out of your "i'm smarter than you" ass, with
> sophistry to prove it, this is the last damned time i will respond to
you.

So why not just say people will get along best if they do such-&-such
instead of all this runaround? You say that I'm the sophist, but you're
the one who's led this whole thing around in a snake, only to arrive at
what I thought we all understood to start with.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:02:19 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert,

you generated much grief when last i was on this list with your
'a woman who defends herself from rape is violating the liberty
a rapist, and imposing her will on him'. when others joined in to
support you, i left.

this time, dunno, a year later, i found you up to the same
irrational bullshit, this time arguing for the 'liberty' of ted
bundy.

well, after signing off the other night, i changed my mind. I'mmm
baaaack, and i intend to haunt you.

on 2/22/03 5:28 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> you streniously object, at every opportunity, to those who bring
>> ethics into the discussion of politics.
>
> No, I only object when they appear to be making factual claims based on
> ethics.

well, all ethical claims, right or wrong, are factual claims. *all* of
them. if hitler says killings jews is "good", that's a factual claim, on
one level or another. as is the claim that gassing jews in germany was
'bad'. now, you claim there is no way to decide such questions, and one
claim is as good as another, with *all* of them being circular. you have
objected ***every*** time anyone in this group has made an ethical claim.
every damned time, that i have read, even in relation to hitler, rapists,
and ted bundy (until you get real damned cornered by the absurdity of your
position, and try sneaking ethics in via that back door).

so, robert, don't say """NO""". that's pure bullshit, given what you have
written. given your previous arguments, when would it be *okay* with you
to introduce ethics, since doing so *always* generates factual claims, as
you know? and as you know, that is *exactly* what you object to!

> Nothing wrong with ethics in politics!

ohhh, really. then why have you been such an eternal bore on the question?!
"nothing wrong", you write, contradicting yourself in spades. even "nothing
wrong" there is an ethical statement, claiming factuality. i object, citing
you, because you "appear" to be making a factual claim with your ethics.

would you please support you ethical & and factual claim that there is
"nothing wrong with ethics in politics", especially since it condradicts
nearly everything you've written on the question!!

> Just don't mke ethical
> statements and then think you've proved something, or given a reason to
> convince people whose ethics differ.

ohhh, really, like your you ethical claim that there is "nothing **wrong**
with ethics in politics"!!!

you contradict yourself every damnded time you put fingers to keys!!

now, i didn't know there was any damnded chance i meet someone in a libs
group who would not share the ethical argument that rape is ***evil***.
but i did. it's waaay beyound me why you demand proof for that claim. i
figured libs had some things in common we could build on, but **no**, you
wrote!! prove it!! well, if you need proof, you'll get it, but that is
not my priority at the moment. my priority is proving what a dumb-shit
you are for demanding it, in relation to rape, hitler, and teddy bundy.
>
>>> Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always
>>> turns out to be circular.

and just how "f" circular is the argument - that whatever the state defines
as "good", with its "legal" laws is useful. that's the most blatantly
circular argument i've ever read!! (and it's damned sick to read it from
a lib, on this list).

THE FACT IS, ROBERT, YOU HAVE SUBSTITUTED THE "LAWS" OF THE STATE, FOR THE
DISCUSSION OF ETHICS. GUNS SETTLE THE THE ANSWER FOR YOU. EVERYTHING ELSE
IS CIRCULAR. WITH THE GUNS OF THE STATE, AND THE "LAW" BEING THE MOST
CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF ALL!
>
>> you dismiss the concept of rights in so far as others claim an ethical
>> root for them (even though it's clear "rights", and right v. wrong are
>> clearly associated, even in relation to word derivation).
>
> Why the "even though"? Something about the connection between "right" &
> "rights" that's relevant yet not obvious?

if you weren't being purposufully obtuse, to prove what a smart dummy you
are, it would be immediately obvious to you that the claim that "rights" are
right, is not only an ethical claim, but one with so much power that it has
influenced the very language. rights, are right!! did you miss that
connection, imbedded in the language, even??!!

if it ain't "relevant" to you, what the "f" are you doing in this list??!!
>
>> you allow that the word "rights" is a useful one, but only in so far
>> as it is used in the context of government law, WHATEVER that law my be,
>
> And not only gov't law, but even in games, contracts, or any other
> context where rules are in play.

HEY!!!, GET EMBARASSED BY YOU OWN DAMNED WORDS. the rules of rubgy have
nothing to do with ***legal**, the only ones you have written are useful.

if you wanna write about rugby, and bridge, you're getting **way** outside
the ***legal*** boundaries you claim is the ***only*** answer.

THE RULES OF RUGBY AND BRIDGE ARE ***ETHICAL***, "IT'S BAD IF YOU WANNA PLAY
WITH US, IF YOU MAKE UP YOU OWN RULES. AND NO DAMNEND RAPISTS GETS TO PLAY
WITH US". OH, GAWD, YOU WOULD WRITE, ETHICS HAS NO DAMNED ROLE HERE. IF
YOU AREN'T GONNA PLAY WITH A RAPIST, YOU ARE ABRIDGING HIS "LIBERTY".

WHEN YOU WRITE, AND YOU HAVE, THAT ONLY "LEGAL" CAN GENERATE RULES, AND
RIGHTS, YOU DON'T GET A RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT RUBGY AND BRIDGE. THAT'S
HUMANS MAKING UP THEIR OWN RULES, WITH NO DAMNED GOVERNMENT "LEGALITY"
ABOUT IT.

>> even if the law grants the "right" to own slaves, that "right" is still
>> exempt from ethical examination, so you have claimed - arguing that to
>> apply ethics to such questions is "circular".
>
> When did I claim it was exempt from ethical examination?

WHEN YOU CLAIMED ETHICAL ARGUMENT MAKES CIRCULAR, UNFOUNDED, NON-FACTUAL
CALIMS. good gawd, robert, that's been your claim to fame, to this point.
and now you wanna know when you made it. ROTFLMAO!!!!

> All I'm saying is that it's pretty stupid to post something here like,
> "Slavery is unethical", or, "Taxes are evil".

well, after encountering you, i wrote up about rape, just to feel out your
libertarianism. i was blown away, especially when you garned so much
support for your pure bullshit.

PRETTY STUPID OF ME, EH, TO WRITE SLAVERY IS UNETHICAL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and "TAXES ARE EVIL", BUT THAT'S AN ETHICAL statement, eh. why spend time
on the when you have rapist's "liberty" to protect??!!

NO "F' WAY DID I EVER EXPECT TO GET AN ARGUMENT FROM AN ASSHOLE ABOUT THAT,
IN A LIBS LIST, NOT TO TO MENTION THE RAPE, AND TED BUNDY THING.

i figured it was pretty damned stupid to find it necessary to post the list
with "rape is evil". one gawddamned place i did not expect of be asked for
proof was in a lib group.

SO, ASSHOLE, "SLAVERY IS UNETHICAL"!!!!!!! AND "TAXES ARE EVIL"!!!!!!

IF YOU ARE NOT 'F' THERE, ALREADY, WHAT THE "F' ARE YOU DOING IN THIS
GROUP??!!

stupid,eh, with you defending the "liberty" of ted bundy and rapists,
against ethicsits who make unfounded, circular, ethical claims, so you "f"
say!!

> It's a goddamn libertarian discussion
> group, like you think you're saying something new?!

no, robert, i didn't think i was saying anything new. i was looking for
friends. then i asked you about rape, ted bundy, and ethics, and i got
the sickest bullshit i've ever read, any place i've been.

YOU BETTER DAMENED WELL GIT "SOMETHING NEW INTO YOUR HEAD", LIKE WHY A WOMAN
DEFENDING HERSELF FROM RAPE IS NOT FORCING HER OPINION ON THE RAPIST.

"IT'S A GODDAMN LIBERTARIAN DISCUSSION GROUP", YOU WRITE. WELL, HELL, I'VE
SEEN NO DAMNED EVIDENCE FROM YOU FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!

IN RELATION TO YOU, ROBERT, I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN. RAPE IS A FUCKING
EVIL!!

IF YOU CAN'T GIT YOU BRAINCELLS AROUND THAT, YOUR A SICK LOW-LIFE, AND A
PARASITE ON THIS LIST.

SO, ROBERT?? WHICH SIDE DO YOU COME DOWN ON, WITH LIBERTY IN THE CUSP??

THE RAPIST, OR THE RAPEE.

AND HOW "F" SICK IS IT THAT I EVEN HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION??!!

> So if someone's
> going to make assertions like that, I want to know what's new; like have
> you discovered a way to PROVE it?

PROVE WHAT THE "F" - LIKE RAPE IS EVIL, AND GENOCIDE, AND THE DRUG WAR, AND
U.S. FORIEGN POLICY.

YEAH, A.HOLE, I GOTTA A WAY TO PROVE IT, BUT DUMMMIES LIKE YOU CLAIM THERE
IS NO WAY, AS ALL POST-MODERNISTS DO.

IF YOU AIN'T GOT IT THROUGH YOU "F" HEAD WHY RAPE IS WRONG (OOPS, ETHICAL
CLAIM), I AIN'T GONNA SPEND MUCH DAMNED TIME ON YOU.

>>> when it comes to legal rights, then, how do you go about
>>> determining
>>> which ones you like, and which ones you don't? why, for instance,
>>> do you "not like" slavery?
>
>> Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I
>> can conceive of.

oh, really, liberty, eh?? by that of the "liberty" of ted bundy, so
you have ascribed "liberty" to him? or the rapist? or are you writing
about liberty, liberty, now?

IT'S GAWD DAMNED HARD KEEPING TRACK OF YOUR MUTILPE DEFINITIONS, SINCE YOU
"F" CLAIM TEDDY WAS JUST EXERCISEING "LIBERTY", GIVEN ONE OF YOUR MANY
DEFINITIONS.

and a. hole "father away from the path of liberty" is an ethical claim.

why the "f' should we care about that, with your "circular ehtics",
bullshit?!! is that **bad**??!! or good??!!

support your circular, ethical claims, pronouncing "factual" with no
damned evidence!!

>> well, robert, your above argument is pure sophistry, given your more
>> fundamental claims.
>
>> first, you define liberty as:
>
>>> absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
>>> beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>>> liberty.
>
>> so, given your primary definition, slave owners are just exercising
>> their liberty, and they also have a "right" granted by "legal
authorities".
>> dunno why you should object, or even what grounds you can stand on
>> *to object, since, with your arguments, you have excluded *any* ethical
>> standard as a means of evaluation.
>
> Because if you have slavery, some people are restrained more than
> necessary for their own maximal exercise of liberty, duh!

DUH!!!!!!! YOU 'F' WRITE, WHEN YOU HAVE WRITTEN THIS GROUP THAT A RAPEE
DEFENDING HERSELF FORM A RAPIST IS CONSTRAINING LIBERTY??!!

AND YOU HAVE WRITTEN THAT ONLY "LEGALITY" CAN GENERATE RIGHTS??!!!

AND "A" HOLE, 'RESTRAINING MORE THAN NECESSARY" IS A ***MORAL, ETHICAL,
FACTUAL CLAIM****. WHERE DO YOU "F" GET OFF MAKING SUCH CLAIMS??!!

"MORE THAN NECESSARY" YOU WRITE! THAT'S CIRCULAR, ETHICAL, BULLSHIT, SO
YOU'VE WRITTEN!!!!!!!!

WHO THE "F" ARE YOU TO WRITE "MORE THE NECESSARY", WHEN ONLY "LEGALITY" GETS
TO DECIDE, SO YOU WRITE??!!!

so, robert, i'm damned tired now, and it ain't worth it to me to continue to
the bottom of this message.

JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, I HAVE A NEW MISSION IN LIFE, AND THAT IS TO HAUNT
YOU!!

<SNIP>

> You say that I'm the sophist, but you're
> the one who's led this whole thing around in a snake, only to arrive at
> what I thought we all understood to start with.

SICK "F", YOU CLAIM. LIKE RAPISTS AND TED BUNDY HAVE LIBERTY??!! AND
ETHICS IS BULLSHIT, SO YOU CLAIM.

**********THAT'S NOT WHAT *I* UNDERSTOOD "TO START WITH"***********. IN
FACT IT'S THE SICKEST CRAP I'VE RAN ACROSS IN A DAMNED LONG TIME!!!!!!!

YOU'RE A SICK "F" ROBERT, AND I'M NOW YOU GHOST!!

LF

>

>
>> but you do, anyway, object to slavery, because you "don't like it".
>
>> and, when backed into the corner of your own absurd arguments, not
> only do
>> you write "i don't like it", you say this:
>
>>> Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I
> can
>>> conceive of.
>
>> now, robert, in that sentence, you change, entirely, your definition
> of
>> liberty. that ain't fair, robert. in fact it is pure bullshit on
> your
>> part. above you are using liberty to exclude slavery, when your
> primary
>> definition includes ted bundy and slaveholders.
>
> Huh? Restraining Ted Bundy leads closer to liberty, because it allows
> others to exercise more liberty.
>
>> not only do you switch definitions in mid-stream, but you smuggle
> ethics in
>> the back door, with your alternate definition of liberty. you imply
>> liberty is a ***good*** to be persued.
>
> I never said otherwise. Actually what I said was that affairs should be
> arranged to minimize trouble, and most willful entities prefer to avoid
> trouble.
>
>> by you own damned arguments, robert,
>> you have no grounds upon which to imply good or bad. that's bringing
> ethics
>> to the table.
>
> All I did was assume that most people want to avoid trouble. The only
> ethics involved is that I'm a nice enough guy to suggest to other people
> how to avoid trouble. That much ethics I can hardly avoid carrying
> around. You want to avoid trouble, you restrain Bundy.
>
>> you imply liberty is a *good* to be persued, and slavery is a *bad* to
> be
>> avoided, in defense of youR alternate definition of liberty.
>
> Liberty seems to minimize trouble, and few would think avoiding trouble
> is not a good to be pursued. Sure, there are some masochists out there,
> as I pointed out, and some animals seem to be wired to pursue & enjoy
> trouble.
>
>> blatant, convoluted sophistry, robert. you outgha be embarassed to
> the
>> quick, at this point, but i ain't done with ya yet.
>
>> you wrote:
>
>>> If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on rules
>>> for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against
> each
>>> other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.
>
>> wait a "f" minute. again, you switch definitions of liberty. first
> you
>> claim liberty is abridged by rules, even in relation to ted bundy.
> and
>> then you claim minimizing "interference against each other" would be
> seeking
>> liberty!! rotflmao!!, at your convoulted, irrational bullshit.
>
> How is that bullshit? The idea is to adopt such rules that are
> minimally restrictive overall. Absolute freedom of action for everyone
> is impossible, so you try to figure out what rules to have that will
> allow the greatest freedom.
>
>> you even imply minimizing "interference" would be a **good**, AGAIN
>> SMUGGLING ETHICS IN VIA THE BACK DOOR.
>
> When did I ever say ethics could be divorced from all considerations?
> As soon as you start arguing what's best for society, the very fact that
> you care to argue it shows ethical consideration. I said you can't
> PROVE ethics. But you can surely hypothesize the best means to certain
> ends. If you ask me how to get to a certain restaurant, I might be able
> to give you good directions based on my knowledge and guesses about
> traffic, but that's no guarantee the food will be good there.
>
>> you define liberty, below, with two self-contradictory definitions:
>
>>> absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
>>> beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>>> liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out.
> That
>>> state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can
> start
>>> at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
>>> somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence
> of
>>> restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
>>> extent, and that state is "liberty".
>
>> first, you define liberty as absence of **all** restraint, and then
> you
>> define it as **restraint** to just the right extent. given that, you
> figure
>> you get to switch back and forth any damned time you want - claming
> that any
>> restraint on ted bundy abridges his liberty, and claiming slavery
> should be
>> restrained because it promotes your alternate, mutually exclusive,
>> definition of liberty.
>
> The trouble is that the word is used in different ways, as I wrote
> before, and I tried to pick the one you most likely wanted the answer
> to, even though it be defined in terms of the other. Probably I should
> use 2 terms -- freedom of the individual, and a society of liberty. A
> society of liberty would maximize the total of the freedom of all the
> individuals in it, but in doing so has to restrain their individual
> freedom to some extent.
>
> It's like mapping territories, if you want to bring in territoriality
> from the cat sub-thread. We could have no boundaries, and then fight
> everywhere. Or we could try to draw boundaries as precisely as
> possible. Theoretically everywhere could be mapped as inside one
> territory or another, which would maximize liberty because there'd be no
> grey areas inviting fights, and only infinitesimally thin lines between,
> so as not to unnecessarily restrict freedom.
>
>> i'd claim you were a dummy, but only a real smart human could attempt
> to
>> pull off double-think like that. you're no dummy, you're just an
> asshole
>> with something to prove. maybe you don't think you are as smart as
> you are,
>> or maybe you think your dick is too short. either way, i figure you
> ought
>> to seek counseling.
>
> Why do you have to be insulting about this? We're just discussing
> ideas, and you seem to take it personally.
>
>>>> is it "good" to minimize trouble? and is it "good" to find the
> best
>>>> solutions to "how" we can find? and, is "how" somehow related to
> the
>>>> existing nature of human beings, and the nature of the universe in
>>>> which we live, or is it just an arbitary thing generated by rule
> givers,
>>>> and "wise men".
>
>>> Now I'm confused. How could ANYTHING NOT be related to the nature
> of
>>> the universe? And how could anything relating to human beings not
> be
>>> related to their nature?
>
>> The solution, very approximately stated, is that people get along best
>> when they leave each other alone.
>
>> WHY IS THAT, ROBERT? YOU SEEM TO BE ARGUING THAT 'IS' IMPLIES
> 'OUGHT'?
>
> It's an observation. If people ought not to get along, then they should
> ignore this advice. I can't prove people ought to get along. I can't
> prove life "shouldn't" be hell. But if you examine people's actions,
> they seem to want to avoid trouble. Sometimes they make bad decisions
> in that regard, and I can advise as to better decisions.
>
>> SEEKING YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS A ****GOOD***** SO YOU IMPLY, WHILE
>> CLAIMING THE CONCEPT OF **GOOD** HAS NO RELEVANCE.
>
>>>> and besides, WHY? should folks try to minimize trouble?
>
>>> Because trouble is by definition bad.
>
>> BAD? GOOD? ROBERT, SMART FUCK, YOU JUST MADE AN ETHICAL
> STATEMENT!!!,
>> CONTRADICTING EVERY DAMN THING YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THE IRRELEVANCE
> AND
>> CIRCULARTIY OF ETHICS.
>
>> BUT YOU DO THAT, OFTEN, EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I'M EMBARASSED FOR
> YOU,
>> IF YOU'RE NOT.
>
> Is it not obvious that people prefer a shoe on their foot to a boot to
> the head?
>
>> if nature and the universe have an identity, and humans do too, as you
>> recognize with your "how could anything not be related", there is an
>> "ought" in the "is".
>
>> if you want to stay alive, don't jump off a cliff. it's a natural
> law.
>
>> and for humans, liberty is a natural law. abridging your second
> definition
>> of liberty is like jumping off a cliff. it gets we humans nothing but
>> "trouble", death, destruction, and even extinction. it's a NATURAL
> LAW,
>> given the nature of the universe, and the nature of humans.
>
> If you state it like that, it's fine. It's based on observation &
> experiment, not apodictic.
>
>> unless you get you head out of your "i'm smarter than you" ass, with
>> sophistry to prove it, this is the last damned time i will respond to
> you.
>
> So why not just say people will get along best if they do such-&-such
> instead of all this runaround? You say that I'm the sophist, but you're
> the one who's led this whole thing around in a snake, only to arrive at
> what I thought we all understood to start with.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:23:41 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Larry!

Larry Fuller analysing the 'Robert Goodman' world of contradictions...

Larry observed:
> you define liberty, below, with two self-contradictory definitions:

Robert Goodman's contradictory statement, to wit:
> >absence of all restraint of wilful beings by other wilful
> >beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
> >liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out. That
> >state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can start
> >at any extreme of one's behaviour w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
> >somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence of
> >restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
> >extent, and that state is "liberty".

Larry meticulously observed, then replied:
> first, you define liberty as absence of **all** restraint, and then you
> define it as **restraint** to just the right extent. given that, you
figure
> you get to switch back and forth any damned time you want - claming that
any
> restraint on ted bundy abridges his liberty, and claiming slavery should
be
> restrained because it promotes your alternate, mutually exclusive,
> definition of liberty.

> i'd claim you were a dummy, but only a real smart human could attempt to
> pull off double-think like that. you're no dummy, you're just an asshole
> with something to prove. maybe you don't think you are as smart as you
are,
> or maybe you think your dick is too short. either way, i figure you ought
> to seek counseling.

You know Larry, although we have had many differences of opinion, I do have
to admire your for sticking with this one. I've all but given up trying to
deal with such semantic games of nonsense, particularly with a cluster of
folks here who employ such tactics so profusely. I've taken the liberty of
saving most of this thread, and you are correct. Robert has indeed switched
definitions, likely in an attempt to avoided clear damning conclusions when
it suits his fancy, simply avoiding dealing with such contradictions as they
are pointed out so clearly. Admittedly though, you have drawn him out into
the open more clearly than others (including myself) have, which exposes his
character for largely relying on useless one-liners to torpedo meaningful
discussion, most often obfuscating any possible conclusions.

Great job Larry.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:24:30 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Larry Fullmer...

Larry Fullmer previously concluded:
> > unless you get you head out of your "i'm smarter than you" ass, with
> > sophistry to prove it, this is the last damned time i will respond to
> you.

You replied:
> So why not just say people will get along best if they do such-&-such
> instead of all this runaround? You say that I'm the sophist, but you're
> the one who's led this whole thing around in a snake, only to arrive at
> what I thought we all understood to start with.

Observing from the sidelines, your conclusion was very smooth, as usual, but
didn't really address the issue Larry raised about natural law. It didn't
satisfactorily address much of any substance concerning what your prevailing
definition of human liberty demands. You gaffed that off too as you seemed
to say, "Well, if you put it that way, why didn't you just say so in the
first place." Your last sentence above is a real doozy. You "thought" we
all understood what was actually a huge conflict in terms of defining
liberty under terms of a definite principle. If the conflict wasn't there,
then Larry would not have had any reason to pursue this thread as
aggressively as he has. I'd be interested in knowing what is the "I though
we all understood to start with."

By that then, do you accept the notion of natural law governing the natural
rights of man? If you answer negatively, then we do not all "understand"
this to start with. For starters, if you answer negatively, YOU don't agree.
So, you can't simply wiggle through this and suggest we "all" have the same
understanding and agreement over the constitution of human rights, and more
specifically, where such rights originated, or even what rights really exist
(except as defined under some legal code).

A few days ago, Michelle wrote it out very simply, yet succinctly: Natural
rights exist even in the absence of any government's recognition or
protection for such rights [My paraphrase]. (She wrote it slightly different
than that, but that is essentially (I believe) what she wrote).

So, perhaps Larry is right after all. You do employ sophistry. Your claim we
"all agree in the first place" is nonsense, unless that is, you *DO* agree
after all that human rights is derived from natural law. But that too would
be a contradiction, because you have so often stated otherwise. Unless you
were only previously playing 'devil's advocate' while secretly believing in
natural law regarding human rights.

While reading this thread, I doubt if Larry could be accused of
orchestrating sophistry. He made a rather penetrating, exhaustive and time
consuming analysis over what your real underlying assumptions might be,
since you rarely reveal them yourself. He was actually quite successful in
that endeavour, if your own stated assumptions are indeed factually
accurate. In which case, only you probably know what your own private
assumptions really are.

Larry was able to point out at least three of your contradictory definitions
of "liberty" during the course of these discussions. No wonder you enjoy
employing one-liners that seem to dispense with specifics, rather than
dealing with such specifics itself. I remember several months ago when
Larry left this list. He confided in me that he had done so after you had
defended Ted Bundy's loss of liberty and several others here seemed to lack
any notion in defining liberty other than their own selfish and self serving
opinions. I can probably understand why Ted Bundy might feel his liberty
was deprived, but I find it difficult to believe that any rational human
being could arrive at the same conclusion.

You've made some rather indirect and outrageous claims "in defence of
liberty", such as the deprivation of slave rights over the ownership of
slaves, claiming legal codes as justification for such rights. You appear in
all such cases to make a mockery out of the Libertarian Party's 'Statement
of Principles', and our "Oath" (pledge) against the initiation of force. In
fact, if anyone takes some of your statements literally, sometimes
'aggression' is 'good' in promoting liberty. This implies that the 'end
justifies the means', and therefore it is good (morally right) to imitate
force for the common good of promoting liberty.

In practice: it is right to kill or even commit genocide acts insofar as
some individuals gain greater liberty in such a process. I know this might
be a stretch, but you have left a dearth of details behind in saying "We all
essentially agree" on such matters.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:22:51 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> You know Larry, although we have had many differences of opinion,
> I do have
> to admire your for sticking with this one. I've all but given up
> trying to
> deal with such semantic games of nonsense.

Interesting. Larry insults Robert's private parts and
gets a pat on the back from Frank.

Is this your intention, Frank? You really want the list
to descend in that kind of filth?

I thought you were here for serious libertarian
discussion. Are you going to resign now and let someone
more serious take over?

Regards
Tim

Matthew 3:10
Every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down and cast into the fire

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:06:44 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in part:

> Observing from the sidelines, your conclusion was very smooth, as
usual, but
> didn't really address the issue Larry raised about natural law. It
didn't
> satisfactorily address much of any substance concerning what your
prevailing
> definition of human liberty demands. You gaffed that off too as you
seemed
> to say, "Well, if you put it that way, why didn't you just say so in
the
> first place." Your last sentence above is a real doozy. You "thought"
we
> all understood what was actually a huge conflict in terms of defining
> liberty under terms of a definite principle. If the conflict wasn't
there,
> then Larry would not have had any reason to pursue this thread as
> aggressively as he has. I'd be interested in knowing what is the "I
though
> we all understood to start with."

It's hard to remember, because Larry's argument seems to be all about
the meaning of certain words, and then whenever I try to make sense of
it, he shifts the ground so that the words no longer cover it -- in
other words, he's engaging in equivocation -- and then blaming ME for
inconsistency. (Actually he does worse, bringing up extremes like Ted
Bundy and then sticking words in my keyboard and claiming me to be a
sick fuck. And often he even paraphrases me and has me having written
things I didn't write.) And he lets months go by and then brings up
things I've forgotten in the detail he seems to need. He must save old
threads and comb thru them periodically for these rants. So I'll try to
reconstruct what I THINK was being asked about and what I have to say
about it.

Some authors have defined the words "freedom" and "liberty" separately
to try to clarify this question -- freedom being the ability or
allowance for a given actor to do things, and liberty being a societal
condition, or the condition of an individual in such a society. The
desires of various actors often conflict, in that they can't all be
satisfied simultaneously. The desire of Ted Bundy (the example Larry
wants to bring up now) to kill people conflicts with the desire of
others not to be killed. Or, for a less emotionally charged example,
the desire of driver A to occupy an intersection with a vehicle
conflicts with the desire of driver B to do the same.

By restraining certain actions desired by certain actors, which of
course reduces their freedom of action, one increases the freedom of
others. Certain rules to do so allow more freedom overall than others.
For instance, to resolve the conflict between Ted Bundy and everyone
else, one could formulate at least 2 possible rules. Rule 1 would be
that Ted Bundy gets to kill whomever he wants, and the rest of us lump
it. This is not much of a gain over having no rule at all to resolve
the conflict; people around Ted Bundy are then so much in jeopardy that
the space around him becomes practically off limits, even though most of
the time there may be nobody he wants to kill, or that even if there
were people in that space, he wouldn't kill most of them. So the amount
of freedom in the world in such a case is almost as much reduced as if
there were no rule at all -- Ted Bundy's gain in freedom would be much
less than the rest of the world's loss. Rule 2 would require Ted Bundy
not to kill people. That would reduce his freedom, but enhance everyone
else's, and bring the world closer to liberty -- a condition in which
the theoretic maximum of freedom were possible.

In the case of the street intersection, one could formulate any number
of rules to resolve the conflict, and have very little to choose between
them in terms of advance toward liberty. This is why laws against
murder are practically universal, while different intersections are
controlled differently. Still, we realize gains by having such
conventions as having red mean stop and green mean go.

> By that then, do you accept the notion of natural law governing the
natural
> rights of man? If you answer negatively, then we do not all
"understand"
> this to start with. For starters, if you answer negatively, YOU don't
agree.
> So, you can't simply wiggle through this and suggest we "all" have the
same
> understanding and agreement over the constitution of human rights, and
more
> specifically, where such rights originated, or even what rights really
exist
> (except as defined under some legal code).

Rights are formulated fom experience in cases such as above. It is
clear that societies that allow people to kill each other don't do as
well as societies that do, which I thought was what Larry was saying in
that message that I agreed with, and if one wants to call that a law of
nature, fine. It is arrived at by observation & experiment, like the
law of gravity, etc. I think that's what Rose Wilder Lane meant by her
conception of "natural law" and how she could title a book "The
Discovery of Freedom". That one I can live with.

> A few days ago, Michelle wrote it out very simply, yet succinctly:
Natural
> rights exist even in the absence of any government's recognition or
> protection for such rights [My paraphrase]. (She wrote it slightly
different
> than that, but that is essentially (I believe) what she wrote).

Now we're paraphrasing so much I don't know whether to agree or
disagree, but I THINK I disagree because it' leading to an equivocation
trap.

> Larry was able to point out at least three of your contradictory
definitions
> of "liberty" during the course of these discussions.

Words have different meanings in different contexts; that's just the way
language is. Trying to apply one meaning to an inappropriate situation
to seem to make a point is called "equivocation", and is what Larry was
doing.

> I remember several months ago when
> Larry left this list. He confided in me that he had done so after you
had
> defended Ted Bundy's loss of liberty and several others here seemed to
lack
> any notion in defining liberty other than their own selfish and self
serving
> opinions. I can probably understand why Ted Bundy might feel his
liberty
> was deprived, but I find it difficult to believe that any rational
human
> being could arrive at the same conclusion.

If you don't understand being in jail as a deprivation of liberty, I
don't know how to convince you.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:17:47 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

tim bedding,

response below:

on 2/24/03 5:22 AM, Tim Bedding at tim.bedding@polyhedra.com wrote:

> Frank
>
>> You know Larry, although we have had many differences of opinion,
>> I do have
>> to admire your for sticking with this one. I've all but given up
>> trying to
>> deal with such semantic games of nonsense.
>
> Interesting. Larry insults Robert's private parts and
> gets a pat on the back from Frank.

hey, tim, i don't think i claimed that roberts 'member' was, in fact,
short. i was just speculating about what his motives might be, given
that liberty, and even reason, are obviously of little motivating value
for him.
>
> Is this your intention, Frank? You really want the list
> to descend in that kind of filth?

uhhh, tim, "filth" is in the eye of the beholder. you remind me of one of
those fundamentalist christians (or fundamendalist islamisist), who gets
more freaked about a litttle clevage than they do about routine death and
destruction. ya ain't one of those nuttsos are ya??

i speculate about how robert might feel about the length of his 'member',
and you respond with ****filth**** (of horrors!!). but if robert writes
that a rapist (or even a murderer) is just exercising liberty (as robert
defines it, you see nooooo filth there, eh??!!

near as i can tell, fixated on sex as you seem to be, your eyes are closed
to true filth!!!!

> I thought you were here for serious libertarian
> discussion. Are you going to resign now and let someone
> more serious take over?

you mean like robert, eh, or maybe you (better yet, both)? wouldn't that be
fun. just think, robert could 'seriously' continue arguing liberty for a
rapist. and you could be on the look-out for filth. why am i rotflmao!! at
your plea for seriousness.
>
> Regards
> Tim

'filthy mouth',

larry

here's a bible quote for you:

malachi 2:3
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

what "filth", eh??!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: 24 Feb 2003 22:23:49 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 05:24, Frank M. Reichert wrote:

> slaves, claiming legal codes as justification for such rights. You appear
in
> all such cases to make a mockery out of the Libertarian Party's 'Statement
> of Principles', and our "Oath" (pledge) against the initiation of force.
In

1. So what? Not all who work toward liberty *must* be libertarian or
even agree. Hell neither you nor I, nor Michell agree 100% with the LP.

2. I know this is going to piss some LP-ers off, but I found out why the
pledge was instituted. Much to my suprise, my first reaction was
correct. The non-initiation pledge, according to Gary Nolan (some of you
may recognize the name --how's that for "name dropping" Larry?), was
instituted to provide a legal counter to any accusations by media and/or
government that the LP was an overthrow-the-government movement that was
prevalent in the early seventies. It was *not* intended to be "the
foundation of all libertarian beliefs and principles" (which is a
violation of Goedel's incompleteness theorem anyway), but CYA.

Of course, that hasn't stopped Lp-ers from using it as a jumping point
to justify everything they want (I'm not making this up: there are a
significant number of LP-ers that believe that taxes are OK, provided
that the government's purpose and usage is to prevent initiation of
force -- and some of them were *founders* of the LP -- a central command
organization from the start in contrast tot eh assertions of the party).

The opening to the LP SoP for the LP reads like it was written by an
angst filled of 8th grader "..the cult of the omnipotent state...".

Don't get me started ....

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: 24 Feb 2003 22:35:56 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 08:06, Robert Goodman wrote:

> If you don't understand being in jail as a deprivation of liberty, I
> don't know how to convince you.

Aww come on, Robert, that's an easy one. Jail time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: national LP, with 10 questions about iraq.
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:35:31 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

folks,

communiction from NLP:
>
> Libertarians challenge Bush to answer
> 10 questions before going to war with Iraq
>
> WASHINGTON, DC - The Libertarian Party is challenging President Bush to
> answer 10 simple, but important, questions about his policy of waging
> war against Iraq.
>
> "Although President Bush has made several attempts to explain why
> deposing Saddam Hussein is worth risking U.S. lives, millions of
> Americans remain unconvinced," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party
> national chair. "That's why Libertarians are respectfully asking the
> president to answer these obvious but overlooked questions about his
> Iraq policy."
>
> (1) Isn't it possible that invading Iraq will cause more terrorism than
> it prevents?
>
> "The al-Qaeda network has explicitly threatened to murder innocent
> Americans in retaliation for a U.S. raid on Iraq," Neale said. "Why
> hasn't Mr. Bush addressed this possibility?
>
> "Even General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander of
> Europe, says: 'Attacking Iraq will detract from our primary mission
> against al-Qaeda, supercharge anti-American sentiment in the Arab
> street and boost al-Qaeda's recruiting.' Is Gen. Clark wrong?"
>
> (2) If Saddam is really a threat to the Middle East, why do his
> neighbors seem to fear him less than the U.S. government does?
>
> "None of the countries bordering Iraq have been clamoring for the
> United States to protect them from Saddam," Neale noted. "So how can
> Bush argue that Saddam poses a threat to a nation halfway around the
> globe?"
>
> (3) Why do you maintain that Iraq poses a more immediate threat than
> North Korea?
>
> "North Korean leader Kim Jong-il admits that he has nuclear weapons
> capable of hitting U.S. targets, and brags that he can 'win' a nuclear
> war with the United States," Neale said. "Please explain why Americans
> should fear Iraq more than this belligerent, and apparently unstable,
> communist dictator."
>
> (4) Why do you believe a U.S.-led "regime change" will do any more
> good in Iraq than it did in Panama, Haiti, or Bosnia?
>
> "Like previous presidents, the Bush administration promises to topple
> a tyrant and liberate the nation," Neale observed. "But if the history
> of U.S. intervention is any guide, Bush will merely replace one
> dictator with another."
>
> (5) You say Saddam has refused to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors.
> Does that mean that you intend to subject Americans to U.N. mandates in
> the future?
>
> "No one should be surprised if this notoriously anti-American agency
> decrees that it's our turn to submit to a weapons inspection, or
> demands that U.S. troops be sent into a bloody, pointless battle
> overseas," Neale said.
>
> "Yet how could Mr. Bush refuse such requests without being denounced
> as a hypocrite? And how could he comply without betraying U.S.
> sovereignty?"
>
> (6) You point out that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that
> "could" be turned over to terrorists. But couldn't the same be said of
> Pakistan, North Korea, and dozens of other nations? And do you intend
> to launch pre-emptive strikes against them as well?
>
> "Bombing Iraq because of what it 'might' do would set a frightening
> precedent," Neale said. "Imagine the global chaos that would result if
> every nation followed Bush's example, and you'll understand how
> reckless a first-strike policy is."
>
> (7) Won't attacking Iraq make Saddam more likely to launch a biological
> or chemical attack?
>
> "During the Gulf War, the Iraqi leader apparently decided that
> unleashing such devastating weapons was not in his self-interest,"
> Neale observed. "But this time Saddam knows he is targeted personally
> - which means he has nothing to lose. If Bush really wants to avoid
> such a catastrophe, he can prove it by keeping U.S. troops out of
> Iraq."
>
> (8) Considering that many of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi
> nationals - not Iraqis - why haven't you publicly accused the Saudi
> government of sponsoring terrorism?
>
> "Bush has struggled mightily to produce a link between Iraq and the
> 9/11 terrorists, while refusing to address allegations of Saudi
> complicity," Neale said. "The grieving families of the 9/11 victims
> have a right to know why."
>
> (9) Why have you stopped mentioning the name of the one individual who
> has been most closely linked to the 9/11 attacks: Osama bin Laden?
>
> "Bush's interest in the world's most-wanted terrorist seems to have
> vanished mysteriously into the caves of Tora Bora," Neale said. "So
> it's understandable for Americans to wonder if invading Iraq is Bush's
> way of punishing Saddam Hussein for the crimes of bin Laden."
>
> (10) Finally, Mr. President, if your Iraq policy is so successful, why
> are Americans more afraid than ever?

'cause that's what he wants them to be, to justify the war with no thought.
it comes down to duct tape, ya know!!!!!!!! fear justifies war, like
nothing else can, and "homeland security", and the "born again christian,
george bush, is use fear to save us. to make us all born again. don't
worry, though, we can handle the bullshit in the next live. all ya gotta to
is get there, by signing on with one of the earth's fictions - christianity,
islam, or judaism. there's no damend hope for us atheists, who think you're
a fucking nuts. but, hell, we're crazy. we figure we only have one life to
live, given the evidence.
>
> "As the attack against Iraq draws near, the Homeland Security
> Department has raised the terrorist threat level to orange; started to
> educate the nation about how to cope with dirty bombs and chemical
> attacks; and warned panicky Americans to stockpile food, water and
> medical supplies," Neale said.
>
> "If this policy is a success, how would we measure failure?"

nuclear bombs would do it, with pakistan, israel, and india haveing 'em, not
to mention north dokata. not to mention the u.s. states bill to their
taxpayers, for this flirt with empire, with yet many fronts of the war to
confront.

think about rome, folks. all roads led to it, once.

sick, evil crap, but i figure nobody is reading me.

oh well, still i gotta speak my atheist heart before the depraved.

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: your subscribe request
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:12:18 -0800
From: "SparkLIST.com" <sparklist-admin@burst.sparklist.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Re: your subscribe request
> subscribe

Sorry, but the email address 'libnw@immosys.com' is already a
member of 'the_new_american_network'.

Because you are already subscribed, SparkLIST.com did not subscribe you
again.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
leave-the_new_american_network-5755435V@burst.sparklist.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: So, Larry: Re: so, phyllis....
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:32:39 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: Phyllis <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

phyllis, missy, and who else i have no damned idea,

age and hard bodies are nothing but destractions.

in my old age, i don't give a fuck about anything but liberty, (and of
course the liberty to fuck
who i want, with her willing, not that i've found a damned one, recently.)
uhh.............

> I had consoled myself with the thought that
> you don't need your "mother" right now, since you have a
> young woman to keep you busy.

jesus h. christ. i can't get pete to respond to anything but wisdom.

and he's a real damned slacker these days, just a lay-about, with no wisdom
around.

he's just about figured he's gonna have to be celibate, but i keep trying to
tell him: the catholic, lutheran, morman road is not the only road.

you damned slacker, pete!!,

seek liberty, or shut-the-fuck-up, (and english is good, if you want to
communicate with college professors, and nuttsos like my friend phyl).

unconditional love, unless you kill a dog, cat, or (the worst?) a bird.

gotta tell, ya, phyllis, there is nothing in my life which has hammered me
more than loosing toby. every damed time i think of her, i get immobilzed
with maximum pain. i wish my memory of her would leave me alone. but i
figure she kept going 'till she couldn't. how they hell could i do less,
with my best friend my model?

LF

so, robert, ken, ed, lowell, i'm a lost soul, in love with a lost bird. so,
do you have anything to offer this "libertarian", except who gives a fuck?

sincerly, seeking wisdom, with it short for me at the moment,

larry - thanks for generating this communication, for good or ill:

>> Phyl

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: So, Larry: Re: so, phyllis....
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:51:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Phyllis <adelaide31@yahoo.com>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>, idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com,
libnw@immosys.com

Larry,

I get absolutely no sense from this communication,
including a couple of remarks you attribute me without
basis in factl

Phyllis

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> phyllis, missy, and who else i have no damned idea,
>
> age and hard bodies are nothing but destractions.
>
> in my old age, i don't give a fuck about anything but
> liberty, (and of
> course the liberty to fuck
> who i want, with her willing, not that i've found a
> damned one, recently.)
> uhh.............
>
> > I had consoled myself with the thought that
> > you don't need your "mother" right now, since you have
> a
> > young woman to keep you busy.
>
> jesus h. christ. i can't get pete to respond to anything
> but wisdom.
>
> and he's a real damned slacker these days, just a
> lay-about, with no wisdom
> around.
>
> he's just about figured he's gonna have to be celibate,
> but i keep trying to
> tell him: the catholic, lutheran, morman road is not the
> only road.
>
> you damned slacker, pete!!,
>
> seek liberty, or shut-the-fuck-up, (and english is good,
> if you want to
> communicate with college professors, and nuttsos like my
> friend phyl).
>
> unconditional love, unless you kill a dog, cat, or (the
> worst?) a bird.
>
> gotta tell, ya, phyllis, there is nothing in my life
> which has hammered me
> more than loosing toby. every damed time i think of her,
> i get immobilzed
> with maximum pain. i wish my memory of her would leave
> me alone. but i
> figure she kept going 'till she couldn't. how they hell
> could i do less,
> with my best friend my model?
>
> LF
>
> so, robert, ken, ed, lowell, i'm a lost soul, in love
> with a lost bird. so,
> do you have anything to offer this "libertarian", except
> who gives a fuck?
>
> sincerly, seeking wisdom, with it short for me at the
> moment,
>
> larry - thanks for generating this communication, for
> good or ill:
>
> >> Phyl
>
> lf
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: So, Larry: Re: so, phyllis....
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:50:56 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

phyllis, others,

on 2/21/03 4:51 AM, Phyllis at adelaide31@yahoo.com wrote:

> Larry,
>
> I get absolutely no sense from this communication,
> including a couple of remarks you attribute me without
> basis in factl
>
> Phyllis

hey, phil, when i've had it up to the eyebrows, i vent.

try thinking of it as poetry, with emotion to communicate.

i know that's a hard road, for attorneys (even law school graduates).

i dunno about misatributed quotes in relation to you. what i do know
is that you have ***not*** responded to me, in relation to your
latest (now boring claim) that atheists are as "faithful" as religious
nuttsos.

i figure you'll keep it up with that mantra, no matter what i say.
and i figure you will piss me off a bit more every time you do it!

wanna push me, phyllis?

larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:25:51 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill, others,

bill, my friend, and i figure you are, with my heart, though you routinely
piss my mind off.

with you claiming u.s. state bonds are the safest investment of all, let me,
pluuze, do some math.

now, bill, i woudn't be doing this, but that i was bored at the work at
"lunchtime".

so, bud, with u.s. government bonds being the safest of all investments, so
you say, play fairly with this senarior: with interest rates at nearly
historical lows, what happens if you invest in the bonds of the state?

truly, i **do not know**, and niether does anyone else.

but lemmie give you some math, bill, should inflation raise it's ugly head.

if you buy a thirty-year government bond, which pays 3%, and you gotta cash
it out, for whatever reason, when the offering rates are 18%, what does that
mean?

it means your $10,000 principal investment is worth $1,667.00. yup,if you
want to cash out, given your faith, you get nearly wiped out, with your
faith in government paper/ink. now, bill, my math was not hypothetical.
i've seen exactly that senarior in my lifetime.

AND, BILL, DO THE FUCKING MATH!!!!!!!!!!

okay, i'm not up to math, tonight, but i figure you oughat give me another
chance, with questions, 'fore you invest in the bonds of the state.

as sincerely as i can be, but just off work, not up to the demands i'm faced
with,

sincerely,

larry


on 2/19/03 4:17 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 02:12, larry fullmer wrote:
>> bill, others,
>>
>> bill, i thought of another way to explain away you argument that
government
>> has assets.
>
> Bring it on. :^)
>
>
>> when the state sells a thirty-year bond, it's an IOU. Yup!! it is not
>> collaterized with a peice of a government freeway.
>
> Correct, it is nothing more than an IOU. Just as a corporate bond is.
> I've never said anything to the contrary. But there is more to it than
> that, and I suspect you may know that. From a purely economic
> standpoint, the safest investment is U.S. bonds. Would you take an IOU
> from some random person on the street? From Frank, from me, from Gookin?
>> From Michelle? How about from your US Senator? See the point?
>
> Bonds are safe for many reasons. The least of which is that if the US
> Government s not paying off binds, there are far, far, far bigger
> problems that a petty bond! Basically, at that point, it really won't
> matter, given all the other things that'll be going on.
>
>
>> it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
>> taxpayers.
>>
>> now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but
they
>> gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
>> "faith in credit".
>
> And they *always* do. That's important. (Economics, not politics)
>
>>
>> freeways are not collateral, bill, and they have **never** been offered
as
>> such.
>
> Right, nobody has said they are, so what are you saying, what is your
> point? (technically, I suppose the land they are on can be considered an
> asset, and since the roadway and lighting infrastructure provide things,
> they are capital and hence, could be considered an asset).
>
>
>> now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
>> monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
>> "assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned risk.
>
> Larry, it's a strawman, nobody has said what you are railing against.
>
>
>
>> it's no damned "red herring" bill. government paper ain't worth the
paper
>> and ink it's printed. it's just that humans, with goverment a gawd,
still
>> are "belivers" in peices of paper with ink, issued by the state.
>
> Larry, there is a big problem with your argument. Te government has
> always paid it's bonds on maturity. Always. *Always*. That is why the
> rate is so low; the risk is low. Past performance *is* a reliable
> predictor of future behavior. I'll take decades/centuries of an
> organization faithfully (hehe) paying it's bonds on time over a
> "secured" loan from one that *needs* to "secure" it's loans with
> collateral. If I'm after low-risk, the former is safer than the latter.
> Just as in private interactions. If I demonstrate to my banker that the
> risk of me paying him back is small, I'll need less-if any- collateral,
> and get a better (i.e. lower) interest rate.
>
> See Larry, you may not *like* the *fact* that the government has assets,
> but it does. Buildings, vehicles, land, etc. are all assets whether or
> not you like that -it is economics not politics. Don't let what you
> like/dislike get in the way of the facts. The argument that they'd never
> sell these assets is 1) untenable, and 2) irrelevant. I have things I'd
> never sell (unless/even if totally desperate), but that does *not* make
> them less of an asset. Many, many, many times the government has sold
> it's some of it's assets; from missile silos to military surplus,
> vehicles to desks.
>
> The Federal Government's debt as a political issue is a red herring; it
> takes one away from far, far, far more important and relevant issues.
> The argument that the US FedGov's debt negatively impacts the economy is
> bunk, indeed the evidence shows a slightly opposite effect. The "debt"
> red herring makes what is purely economical into a political miasma.
>
>
>> well, i have a lot of problems with "faith". i figure you know that.
>
> Yes you have a problem with religious faith and "faithfully" (hehe)
> carry that over to *every* use of the word -even in non-religious
> contexts. However, *I* am not talking about faith.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: 21 Feb 2003 08:48:47 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 04:02, larry fullmer wrote:
> bill, others(?),
>
> interspersed below:
>
> on 2/19/03 4:17 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > But there is more to it than
> > that, and I suspect you may know that. From a purely economic
> > standpoint, the safest investment is U.S. bonds.
>
> well, bill, i hope you're not safety conscious, putting your money
> into bonds of the state. try selling a thirty-year government bond
> which pays 3% when the rate for the newly issued is 18%. yeah, the
> bond will pay 3% 'till maturity, but if you wanna cash out to seek
> higher rates, or for any other reason, you'll lose one helluva a lot
> of invested principal. you're too young to know firsthand about what
> inflation does to the "safety" of government bonds. i truly hope you
> don't have to learn the hard way.

You know larry, I wish you could understand the difference between
talking about something and being in favor or taking part in it.

>
> but you're right, in the context of the moment, they seem "safe",
> that's why so many japanese have been buying 'em, with no damned where

Where is your evidence that "the Japanese" are buying them in any
significant proportion to any other class of individuals?

> > Basically, at that point, it really won't
> > matter, given all the other things that'll be going on.
>
> yeah, like society collapsing into fascism (or socialism, if you prefer).
>
> well, bill, the state will *always* pay its bills, with paper/ink. that
> does not mean that you will be able to buy anything with it. i thought
you
> started out here talking about safety and security.

That's why you don't understand what I'm saying. That's not what I
started out talking about, and I've not been talking about security.

> >
> >
> >> it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
> >> taxpayers.
> >>
> >> now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but
they
> >> gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is
no
> >> "faith in credit".
> >
> > And they *always* do. That's important. (Economics, not politics)
>
> ALWAYS!!!, YOU WRITE. you're such a young guy, bill, with not much
history
> under you belt.

Not that you show any evidence to support that claim ...

>
> you're a libertarian, and you tell me paper/ink from the state is the
safest
> investment you can make. excuse me, bill, but i gotta go ROTFALMAO!!

You should be since I never said that., That's more crap you've made up
so you can "fight" over it.

>
> >> now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
> >> monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
> >> "assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned
risk.
> >
> > Larry, it's a strawman, nobody has said what you are railing against.
>
> i'm railing against state paper/ink as a place to put trust/faith. the
> state will rip you off any damned way it can. the state's debt is a way
> to acquire resources for its own purposes, as is taxation. truth is,
bill,
> with the ultimate price to pay, i much prefer taxation. that, at least
> does not lay the ground work for a collapse into chaos (as you, yourself,

The power to tax is the power to destroy. The Idaho state Corporate
income tax alone is enough that if not in existence, businesses in Idaho
would have enough money to pay for 2000 employees at 40,000/year. How
much better would our economy be without the layoffs that lead to
unemployment claims and welfare claims? How much better would we all be
if the politicians didn't get to use layoffs and such as an excuse to
spend and tax more?

> > Larry, there is a big problem with your argument. The government has
> > always paid it's bonds on maturity.
>
> yup, most often with devalued paper/ink. since the u.s state started

No, most often by rolling it over.

> > The Federal Government's debt as a political issue is a red herring; it
> > takes one away from far, far, far more important and relevant issues.
>
> well, bill, you are right, there are one helluva a lot of things to worry
> about. you raised the issue. think of the worst case. think about
belivers

No, I responded to it.

> > The argument that the US FedGov's debt negatively impacts the economy is
> > bunk, indeed the evidence shows a slightly opposite effect. The "debt"
> > red herring makes what is purely economical into a political miasma.
>
> christ, bill, you're so damned wrong, with you willing to flirt with
chaos.
>
> but i don't wanna get into a 'statistics' battle with ya. have it your
way,
> for the time being. you'll see the evicence before you die.

I've seen the evidence, and it is not statistics. It is simple
comparison. You lack the evidence, so of course you don't want to go
there. But that's fine, I'm used to that. You can't show the data to
back up your beliefs, you have faith in your belief that higher federal
debt is responsible for higher interest rates and who am I to argue with
your faith?

>
>
> >> well, i have a lot of problems with "faith". i figure you know that.
> >
> > Yes you have a problem with religious faith and "faithfully" (hehe)
> > carry that over to *every* use of the word -even in non-religious
> > contexts. However, *I* am not talking about faith.
>
> you sure as hell are, bill, if you are investing in paper/ink issued by
the
> state.

No, I am not, regardless of your faith.

>
> full faith in the state is what you are arguing for, in relation to

No, it is not. Just some reality and reason as opposed to mindless
drivel about debt and the state.

> paper/ink. well, truly, paper with ink on it ain't worth squat. not long
> ago that paper/ink represented true, real value, backed with gold and
silver

What good is something backed by gold or silver if all you have is the
paper? All backed by gold/silver was was a *promise* to give that
gold/silver if/when you asked for it. A *promise*, nothing more. What
recourse did you have if they don't do it? None.

Money "backed by gold" is still just paper and ink.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: 21 Feb 2003 09:09:40 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 06:14, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> Larry Fullmer originally wrote:
> > > when the state sells a thirty-year bond, it's an IOU. Yup!! it is
not
> > > collaterized with a peice of a government freeway.
>
> You replied:
> > Correct, it is nothing more than an IOU. Just as a corporate bond is.
> > I've never said anything to the contrary. But there is more to it than
> > that, and I suspect you may know that. From a purely economic
> > standpoint, the safest investment is U.S. bonds. Would you take an IOU
> > from some random person on the street? From Frank, from me, from Gookin?
> > >From Michelle? How about from your US Senator? See the point?
>
> That isn't a very great defence for promoting government ink, Bill.

So what, I'm not promoting them. Just clarifying some facts about them.
unfortunately, you do not seem to acknowledge a difference between
promoting something and talking about it.

>
> Frank, Michelle, Dan, doesn't sell bonds, but governments usually do.
>
> If I were to have purchased bonds, say, from United Airlines, before
> they had moved into bankruptcy court, I would at least have a degree
> of claim to the corporate assets in paying some of that back.
>
> Larry made a good case, that government has no such collateral to
> offer, that is, insofar as government assets are only backed up by
> individual taxpayers. At least in the case of bankruptcy courts, all
> assets are put on the table to pay creditors first.
>
> I suggest corporate bonds are usually still largely a good hedge in a
> badly deteriorated market. When it *REALLY* gets bad, gold, or real
> assets such as real estate are a far greater value to individual
> investors than government assets. The US dollar still is taking a
> tremendous beating on foreign exchange markets. So even US government
> bonds is a raw deal. Which is why the gold market has surged so far in
> the last 18 months or so.

So, how many people in that "good market" are getting actual physical
gold? Nearly none. They get a piece of paper that says they are
"entitled" to some.

>
> > Bonds are safe for many reasons.
>
> Well, US bonds aren't safe at all. As I just reported, US denominated
> bonds are at a loss when considering other currencies, including the
> Euro. I'm not suggesting that Euro denominated bonds are all that

You, like Larry, confuse safe with profitable. Sorry, i can't help you
with that misconception.

> > The least of which is that if the US
> > Government s not paying off binds, there are far, far, far bigger
> > problems that a petty bond! Basically, at that point, it really won't
> > matter, given all the other things that'll be going on.
>
> You are correct, at least in this point. However, buying up gold is a
> good option in such times. So is purchasing additional real estate
> equity. No. I am not buying into gold -- yet, although I have to admit
> it is probably going to be the ultimate hedge if things get seriously
> much worse than they are today.

Gold is only valuable if someone is willing to pay you for it. I know
people who got taken to the cleaners on gold because it *gasp* went down
in price. There are also many who got taken because all they really got
was a promise, and "IOU' for gold.

>
> Larry wrote:
> > > now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but
they
> > > gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is
no
> > > "faith in credit".
>
> And, you replied:
> > And they *always* do. That's important. (Economics, not politics)
>
> Yes. But history has shown it doesn't automatically work that way. You
> only assume US fiat currency will be worth about the same as it does
> today, in say, another 12-18 months. You assume therefore that the
> bond you bought today, in US dollars, will be intrinsic to the value
> of what it will be worth in 5 - 10 years. Remember, we are talking
> here mainly about ink and paper, not tangible assets, as Larry pointed
> out.

So is most of your so-called gold investments. I make no assumptions
about the profitability of bonds or any other asset (short of real
estate but then hey if the government decides to take it from you, you
lose there too that's why everything carries risk there NO sure things,
not even gold).

>
> United Airlines, even in bankruptcy court, has much more than that to
> put on the table. I still have around 500 shares or so in United
> Airlines, although that too is hopefully contingent upon final
> settlements and the strength of real assets to perform. I do not own

And if United were to declare total insolvency, your stocks can be worth
less than the paper they are written on.

> United Airlines bonds. In economic dynamics, there is much more to all
> of this than can be explained in simple conversation. In some sense,
> you are correct that it is very difficult often to separate economic
> from political concerns. Economics will always drive politics.
>
> Larry wrote:
> > > freeways are not collateral, bill, and they have **never** been
offered as
> > > such.
>
> You replied:
> > Right, nobody has said they are, so what are you saying, what is your
> > point? (technically, I suppose the land they are on can be considered an
> > asset, and since the roadway and lighting infrastructure provide things,
> > they are capital and hence, could be considered an asset).
>
> Why do you feel this is legally defensible? Many constitutional

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I never said a damned
word about "legally defensible" or anything remotely like that. I'm
talking about the cold hard reality. The reality is that the government
does indeed own these assets (buildings, land, equipment, etc..)

> scholars have long suggested that such ownership itself in
> indefensible. As long as you are on this subject, just how many
> federal government assets might be claimed as legitimate assets? The
> so-called public lands? National Parks?

Anything you can sell is an asset. Simple stuff, really. Just because
the government buys a car from a car maker as opposed to a
non-governmental entity does not mean that car is no longer an asset.

>
> My only response to this is that the US federal government is a
> perpetual sponge, soaking up tax dollars, creating inflation to
> subsidize its downside, and with little more to show than worthless
> paper promises to pay, known as FRNs which itself it does not own! Not
> much of a portfolio that I might like to buy into anyway. Short term,
> maybe. Long term, no way. It's only upside, is that it still has the
> ability to tax. Take away that ability, and the assets become very
> questionable, even if they were put on the table, which they aren't.

No, the ability to tax has NOTING to do with the existence of capital
assets. When i was laid off that did not make my assets (car, house,
computers, etc.) any less valuable.

>
> Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > > now, it's true, freeways might make us more productive, as the state's
> > > monopoly on education claims. but there has been no collaterizing of
> > > "assets". buy govenrment paper, with ink on it at your own damned
risk.
>
> > Larry, it's a strawman, nobody has said what you are railing against.
>
> I disagree. This is no strawman, per se. It's part and parcel of the
> argument against buying into government paper. It calls into question

No, it is clearly a straw man. nobody claimed that freeways were an
asset and that they were being used as collateral. Larry proposed the
argument and then attacked it. The very definition of a straw man.

> a lot of things, particularly in this case, what might legitimately be
> underlying government debt at the federal level. When things really
> get terribly bad, buy gold. I still haven't reached that point. But,
> I believe, the point is a good one. When you buy into gold, you are
> buying into supply and demand, not on government ink and paper.

Only when/if you get real gold when you buy it. Most gold investing is
really nothing more than IOS for gold ... the very ink and paper you and
Larry seem so frightened of.

>
> > Larry, there is a big problem with your argument. Te government has
> > always paid it's bonds on maturity. Always. *Always*. That is why the
> > rate is so low; the risk is low. Past performance *is* a reliable
> > predictor of future behavior.
>
> No. I object. It is not. Government performance rises and falls all

Then why ban Larry from idaho_libs for his past behavior?

> the time, as the US government's performance currently shows in the
> diminishing value of the US dollar. What the US government offers in
> terms of interest, has been largely erased by the current value of the
> US dollar. It only shows you are being paid in largely devaluated
> (worthless ink and paper).

Something that can happen with nearly any investment. Even real estate.
The safety in a government bond is that you *will* get a certain dollar
amount. Period. I've not been talking about profitability, but you and
Larry can't seem to see the difference. Somehow, I'm not suprised.

> To bring this point home, certain portfolios in African stock has
> risen 38% over the last 18 months in terms of US denominated
> securities of the same value given the offset for devaluation of the
> dollar. Government bonds therefore are marginalized, depending largely
> on their value, which again is largely paper based and of no real
> ultimate value at all.

If I held a government bond worth $100 that I paid 80 for, and sold it
to someone who became uncertain in the stock market, and shifted their
money to bonds for 90, I'm ahead of the game.

>
> > I'll take decades/centuries of an
> > organization faithfully (hehe) paying it's bonds on time over a
> > "secured" loan from one that *needs* to "secure" it's loans with
> > collateral. If I'm after low-risk, the former is safer than the latter.
>
> Then, you may have guessed wrong. Only time will tell. Right now you
> are losing.

I'm not guessing.

To carry on with the "past behavior" thing, you let new people in to
idaho_libs, but not Larry. They have not shown themselves to swear curse
and attack/vilify people (even those they claim are friends) whilst you
keep Larry out. Past performance is an indicator of future behavior.
Perfect, it is not. Yet you sit there and claim past performance is not
an indicator of future performance, while practicing just that.

>
> > Just as in private interactions. If I demonstrate to my banker that the
> > risk of me paying him back is small, I'll need less-if any- collateral,
> > and get a better (i.e. lower) interest rate.
>
> Again, the collateral thing, in terms of the US government is an open
> question, and it really isn't on the table unless the government melts
> down. It could. Other governments have.
>
> > See Larry, you may not *like* the *fact* that the government has assets,
> > but it does. Buildings, vehicles, land, etc.
>
> And, specifically, what assets does the government really have, aside
> from vehicles, buildings (also under question by many) OTHER THAN THE
> ABILITY TO TAX? As I see it, ultimately that is the chief asset that

The ability to tax is *not* an asset. It can not be sold.

>
> > Don't let what you
> > like/dislike get in the way of the facts. The argument that they'd never
> > sell these assets
>
> Unfortunately, you believe the US federal government has such assets.

What, you trying to tell me you don't believe the government has any
buildings, land, equipment, vehicles, etc?? Jeez, I thought JQ was naive
on things, but this, this is just hilarious.

> What real assets does the US government have a right to claim
> ownership over? Taxation seems to be the real clue here. That too can

If the sheriff's office forks over money for a car, they have a right to
claim ownership of it. That is the foundation of a capitalist economy,
and the foundation of the American rights system: property rights. It
doesn't matter how much you refuse to "believe" the government owns
those things, it doesn't change the fact that it does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: 21 Feb 2003 09:14:03 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 07:25, larry fullmer wrote:
> bill, others,
>
> bill, my friend, and i figure you are, with my heart, though you routinely
> piss my mind off.

Well, of you'd pay attention to what I'm writing and not make stuff up,
you'd probably be less pissed off.

>
> with you claiming u.s. state bonds are the safest investment of all, let
me,
> pluuze, do some math.

Never have I claimed that.

>
> now, bill, i woudn't be doing this, but that i was bored at the work at
> "lunchtime".
>
> so, bud, with u.s. government bonds being the safest of all investments,
so
> you say, play fairly with this senarior: with interest rates at nearly
> historical lows, what happens if you invest in the bonds of the state?
>
> truly, i **do not know**, and niether does anyone else.
>
> but lemmie give you some math, bill, should inflation raise it's ugly
head.
>
> if you buy a thirty-year government bond, which pays 3%, and you gotta
cash
> it out, for whatever reason, when the offering rates are 18%, what does
that
> mean?
>
> it means your $10,000 principal investment is worth $1,667.00. yup,if you
> want to cash out, given your faith, you get nearly wiped out, with your
> faith in government paper/ink. now, bill, my math was not hypothetical.
> i've seen exactly that senarior in my lifetime.

You buy a house, it cost you $65,000, with a decent interest rate say
after your thirty years of mortgage payments, it only cost you $200,000.
Riots start happening and nearly every house/building in the area is
destroyed by fire and other damage. The people around you decide they
aren't going to rebuild. The result is that property values plummet, and
your 200,000 investment is now worth maybe 20,000.

Before you tell me that isn't likely, tell the people in Watts.

One last time:
safety != profit.

Good bye.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:33:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill, others,

responding to bill, interspersed below, on the **"safety"** of the bonds
of the state.

lf wrote:
>> with you claiming u.s. state bonds are the safest investment of all, let
me,
>> pluuze, do some math.

bill responded:>
> Never have I claimed that.

well, you damned well did, but i ain't gonna spend the time to find it.
I'll settle for this quote from you:

"Bonds are safe for many reasons", bill wrote, causing me to roll on the
floor and laugh my ass off.

lf wrote:
> it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
> taxpayers.
>
> now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but they
> gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
> "faith in credit".

"And they *always* do", writes bill, claiming safety again.

the government bond market is the biggest crap table on the planet, with
investment advisors advising little old ladies to buy 'em, because they
are safe, as you have advised, with your claim of "safety". the helluva
it is, bill, you advise that and you don't even get a commission (and you're
right, you've never written about little old ladies. just the "safety" of
government paper).

roll the dice, you can make millions, or you can lose millions, but safety
is ***not*** on the crap table of government paper, even if they "always"
pay, with paper/ink.

i wrote you up about a $10,000 dollar bond turning into a marketable value
of $1,600, with recent history a guide.

and still you have not retracted your claim about "safety".

all you want to do, bill, is be "right".

dunno why i bother with ya.

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill "maximum debt"....
Date: 21 Feb 2003 20:25:12 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 23:33, larry fullmer wrote:
> bill, others,
>
> responding to bill, interspersed below, on the **"safety"** of the bonds
> of the state.
>
> lf wrote:
> >> with you claiming u.s. state bonds are the safest investment of all,
let me,
> >> pluuze, do some math.
>
> bill responded:>
> > Never have I claimed that.
>
> well, you damned well did, but i ain't gonna spend the time to find it.

Cuz it isn't there.

> I'll settle for this quote from you:
>
> "Bonds are safe for many reasons", bill wrote, causing me to roll on the

Now, where does that even imply that bonds are "the safest investment of
all"? Nowhere.

> floor and laugh my ass off.
>
> lf wrote:
> > it is a promise to pay, when the time comes, with a mortage on u.s.
> > taxpayers.
> >
> > now, you are right, the state can "roll-over" the promise to pay, but
they
> > gotta pay the folks who bought the original bond. gotta! or there is no
> > "faith in credit".
>
> "And they *always* do", writes bill, claiming safety again.
>
> the government bond market is the biggest crap table on the planet, with
> investment advisors advising little old ladies to buy 'em, because they
> are safe, as you have advised, with your claim of "safety". the helluva
> it is, bill, you advise that and you don't even get a commission (and
you're
> right, you've never written about little old ladies. just the "safety" of
> government paper).
>
> roll the dice, you can make millions, or you can lose millions, but safety
> is ***not*** on the crap table of government paper, even if they "always"
> pay, with paper/ink.
>
> i wrote you up about a $10,000 dollar bond turning into a marketable value
> of $1,600, with recent history a guide.
>
> and still you have not retracted your claim about "safety".

Because there is a difference between safety and security, and safety
and *profit*, yet you willfully refuse to see it. I never claimed they
were always profitable, yet you refuse to admit that. You insist on
making strawman arguments and lying about me in order to feel good about
your own arguments or something. You make false claims about what I say,
claims which can be verified and/or shown to be false, and refuse to put
up or retract, then you go and say you want me to retract something
which is true, and that you've been unable to show is false. Did you
loan your keyboard to Dan?

> all you want to do, bill, is be "right".
>
> dunno why i bother with ya.

Because you want "to fight". But don't worry, it takes two; and unless
you can either show me where I said that bonds (government) are always
profitable, or that they were the safest investment of all, I'm done
talking with you. I will, however say one last thing: it was good to see
you not cussing too much and calling me names and stuff. Thanks for
that.

Cheers,
Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank asks "what's (my) beef"
Date: 21 Feb 2003 09:22:18 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 13:26, Michelle wrote:
> --- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
> > Michelle
> >
> > > A statement that proves Phyllis's point: Atheists
> > > don't accept theists' proof.
> >
> > Assertion is not argument. Saying something is proof
> > does not make it a proof any more than saying
> > the moon is made of green cheese makes it so.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. But if
> you're suggesting theists have never presented
> arguments supporting belief in some god, you obviously
> aren't very familiar with the copious philosophical
> writings on the question of god's existence.

My understanding of what Tim wrote was that just because you say
something, that does not make it true. He is right. You asserting that
"Atheists don't accept theists; proofs" does not prove anything.

>
> Theists *have* presented arguments for god's
> existence. Whether their arguments are valid is a
> separate question.

Neither side has proofs, they have evidence and arguments, theories and
hypotheses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: NASA, was Re: Second Amendment
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:47:17 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,<libnw@immosys.com>

I suppose this means that NASA faked the Columbia crackup, too. :-)

Tim Bedding wrote:

>Never mind the words of Robert. We have bigger fish to fry.
>
>I have now located on the web irrefutable evidence
>that Nasa faked the moon landings.
>
>Check it out
>http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~g-b-dix/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
>
>Regards
>Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 14:55:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>
> > Actually, cats fight because they are territorial.
>
> But how is that territoriality mediated
> physiologically? Territoriality
> is an effect, not a cause -- at least if we're
> discussing EFFICIENT
> cause (Aristotelian sense). You're writing
> teleologically here (final
> cause -- Aristotelian sense).

My point is that cats - like many, many other species
of animals - are territorial. They don't fight
because they are "masochistic" or because they "like
pain;" they fight because they value access to a
female OR keeping another tom off their territory
*more* than they dislike the "pain" caused by
fighting.

> > And
> > it's only a fraction of cats who do the vast
> majority
> > of the fighting - unneutered toms who are fighting
> > over females and/or keeping other toms out of
> their
> > territory.
>
> What about the females that fight?

What about them? The vast majority of cats who fight
are unneutered toms (who are motivated to fight over
females and to keep other toms away because of their
sex drive). Females - spayed or not - and neutered
males sometimes fight too; it's just much less common
for them.

> > Of course, cats likely do get at "adrenaline rush"
> > when they're fighting (just as a human chased by a
> > bear would get an adrenaline rush), but that
> hardly
> > correlates to "liking" pain.
>
> Then why do they do it, and seem uncomfortable when
> they're restrained
> from doing it? I suspect at least dopamine
> (m-hydroxy-nor-adrenaline)
> operating here, not just adrenaline -- probably
> endorphin too. Others
> have noted apparently masochistic cat behavior.

Because they value protecting their "territory" more
than they dislike the pain.

Teachers break apart fights between junior high and
high school age boys and sometimes have to physically
restrain them from continuing their fight. Does this
mean teenage boys "like" pain? For the most part, I
doubt it. The fighting is largely a status thing and
they value increasing their status more than they
dislike the "pain" of fighting. Most teenage boys who
"enjoy" fighting probably don't spend time when they
are by themselves (i.e. no audience) slamming their
fingers in doors, dipping their hands in scalding
water, or cutting themselves with knives - in other
words, causing themselves pain just for the joy of
experiencing pain.

(Granted, there are some humans who, due to emotional
problems, deliberately cause themselves pain because
they find some benefit in the pain. Undoubtedly, some
cats are the same way. But just because some
emotionally disturbed humans - or emotionally
disturbed cats - "like" pain that doesn't make it
accurate to say that either humans or cats *as a
species* "likes" pain.)

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:48:59 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

gawd damn, folks,

robert brought the 'masochism" of cats into the discussion of
ethics, and liberty, as an intended diversion, and michelle rose to the
bait.

now the *hot* subject is 'cat fighting'.

puke!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:35:54 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

The other apparent masochistic behavior noted in friends' cats had
nothing to do with fighting. Rather, the cats kept coming back to their
owners for more of what seemed like punishment. In one case the cat
yowled and squirmed while being held before finally escaping -- only to
run right back for more. In the other, the cat liked being spanked and
disliked being petted.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:49:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Larry,

If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats and
if Robert and I wish to argue about their motivations
for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless you
want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then empty
your trash can.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> gawd damn, folks,
>
> robert brought the 'masochism" of cats into the
> discussion of
> ethics, and liberty, as an intended diversion, and
> michelle rose to the
> bait.
>
> now the *hot* subject is 'cat fighting'.
>
> puke!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> lf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 22 Feb 2003 23:42:06 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 17:48, larry fullmer wrote:
> gawd damn, folks,
>
> robert brought the 'masochism" of cats into the discussion of
> ethics, and liberty, as an intended diversion, and michelle rose to the
> bait.
>
> now the *hot* subject is 'cat fighting'.

Hey, what's wrong with "cat fighting" wink wink, say no more, say no
more, a nudge is as good as a nod, know what I mean. know what I mean.
;^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 22 Feb 2003 23:42:22 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 21:49, Michelle wrote:
> Larry,
>
> If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
> posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats and
> if Robert and I wish to argue about their motivations
> for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless you
> want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
> like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then empty
> your trash can.

Well stated, Michelle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:29:52 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote:

> The other apparent masochistic behavior noted in friends' cats had
> nothing to do with fighting. Rather, the cats kept coming back to their
> owners for more of what seemed like punishment. In one case the cat
> yowled and squirmed while being held before finally escaping -- only to
> run right back for more. In the other, the cat liked being spanked and
> disliked being petted.

I never liked cats very much in the first place. Dogs are more my
preference. Nevertheless, diversions I hate even worse. And,
admittedly, this is another good one.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:33:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello again Michelle!

Michelle wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
> posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats and
> if Robert and I wish to argue about their motivations
> for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless you
> want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
> like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then empty
> your trash can.

Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a Libertarian
discussion group? Maybe such discussion should taking place in
private email rather than a libertarian discussion list. I don't see
how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:43:03 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Michelle Eilers...

Michelle Eilers wrote to Larry Fullmer:
> > If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
> > posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats and
> > if Robert and I wish to argue about their motivations
> > for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless you
> > want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
> > like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then empty
> > your trash can.

You replied, in defence of Michelle:
> Well stated, Michelle.

Excuse me Bill. But "cat behavioural topics" aren't really "on-topic"
on Liberty Northwest. We have enough spam getting in here as it is,
rather than discussing things of little or no relevance such as cat
behaviour. As Moderator, my call is that if certain individuals wish
to discuss cat behaviour, they should do all of that in private email,
or on a discussion list devoted to cat behaviour (or related topic),
not human Liberty. This is clearly OFF TOPIC.

Frank M. Reichert
Moderator,
Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:01:21 -0700
From: "Ben Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

On 2/24/2003 Frank observed:

> Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a Libertarian
> discussion group? Maybe such discussion should taking place in
> private email rather than a libertarian discussion list. I don't see
> how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.

Well the link could be that cats are a very libertarian and liberty loving
pet, and that dogs are the social-fascists of the animal kingdom (lol).
Strange as it might seem, my late elderly cat "Rocky" would not permit
any non-family member to pet her (indeed, she generally would bite
others), except for Mike Fellows, the Chairman of the Montana Libertarian
Party. She would even jump on his lap and purr.

Ben

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:37:15 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Ben,

Reading you below, it sounds to me like "Rocky", the cat, was a sadist.

That flies into the face of Roberts claim that they are masochists.

Now, i understand why Frank is more than a little peed at this discussion of
cat fighting, since Robert, and only Robert, raised it as a diversion, with
absolutely **no** relevance in relation to what he claimed to be discussing.

Now, Michelle is a cat lover (does that make her a sadist, in relation to
Robert's claim that cats are masochistic?), so i understand why she allowed
Robert to get her off-track.

Me? I'm "bi" on this question. I love both cats & dogs, not to mention
many other living beings, like whales, and chimps. But this is not the
place to discuss "beastilaity".

So, to back up Frank's request, with another reason entirely, it's "my
opinion, i could be wrong", that we should limit this discussion of sadism,
masochism and beastiality so as not to offend Tim Bedding. If he gets
'wetted' enough about the filth on this list he's likely to figure a way to
pull a coup on Frank and enforce "seriousness" on behalf of Robert - in
defense of liberty, of course.

And, did you notice Tim took no offense at Robert discussing, in public, the
barbs on a male cats penis? What filth on this list!! Me? I bought a
ribbed condom once (oops, sorry, tim, i strayed (as any male cat would) from
the subject, introduced by your buddy, Robert, of "cat penises".

What filth, on this list - AND ROBERTS CLAIM TO BE A RATIONAL DEFENDER OF
LIBERTY IS THE BIGGEST DUNG HEAP OF ALL!!!!!!, with tim defending him from
filth.

AS SINCERELY AS I CAN BE,

larry



on 2/24/03 3:01 PM, Ben Irvin at birvin@allidaho.com wrote:

> On 2/24/2003 Frank observed:
>
>
>> Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a Libertarian
>> discussion group? Maybe such discussion should taking place in
>> private email rather than a libertarian discussion list. I don't see
>> how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.
>
> Well the link could be that cats are a very libertarian and liberty loving
> pet, and that dogs are the social-fascists of the animal kingdom (lol).
> Strange as it might seem, my late elderly cat "Rocky" would not permit
> any non-family member to pet her (indeed, she generally would bite
> others), except for Mike Fellows, the Chairman of the Montana Libertarian
> Party. She would even jump on his lap and purr.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:56:18 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote in part:

> Now, i understand why Frank is more than a little peed at this
discussion of
> cat fighting, since Robert, and only Robert, raised it as a diversion,
with
> absolutely **no** relevance in relation to what he claimed to be
discussing.

I raised it only as an exception to the statement I made that willful
beings tend to dislike trouble.

> And, did you notice Tim took no offense at Robert discussing, in
public, the
> barbs on a male cats penis? What filth on this list!!

I was discussing things scientifically, you were just being insulting.

Sourly By Inert I,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:16:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

--- Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net> wrote:
> Hello again Michelle!
>
> Michelle wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> > If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
> > posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats
> and
> > if Robert and I wish to argue about their
> motivations
> > for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless
> you
> > want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
> > like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then
> empty
> > your trash can.
>
> Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a
> Libertarian
> discussion group? Maybe such discussion should
> taking place in
> private email rather than a libertarian discussion
> list. I don't see
> how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.

I was under the impression that minimal censoring of
conversation occurred on the list and that people here
could talk about pretty much what they wanted to - so
long as they avoided making sexist, racist,
anti-religionist etc. comments (though even with that
there's quite a bit of leeway seeing as how Larry is
still a group member). Robert maligned cats in a
previous post and I did not care to allow such
improper, speciest statements to stand unchallenged.

It is also significant that Robert was using his
assertions about cats as an example to back up some
argument he was making relating to politics. Are we
not allowed to argue challenge the validity of
people's examples if those examples are not directly
related to libertarian ideals? Please inform me if
that is the case. since such a rule would definitely
curtail my ability to post here.

I really think your complaints about this thread have
more to do with your "dislike" of cats than anything
else. This isn't the first time a non
libertarian-related post showed up here. Heck, a
number of the regular posters here aren't even
libertarians! Moreover, only a week or so ago, you
were planning to move a private thread regarding the
existence of God to libnw. Discussions about religion
and God certainly aren't terribly relevant to
libertarianism either are they? (At least that's what
you told me a few months back when I suggested you
move a conversation Bill and I were having about Wicca
and monotheism to this list. Perhaps your interest in
the Christian religion makes you more willing to let
*that* off-topic conversation slide?)

I'm not sorry for my posts and will continue to
correct false statements about animal behavior when I
see them (particularly as ideas about animal behavior
are related to the concept of animal rights which I
consider very important - and which *is* defintely
related to politics and libertarianism). If you have
a problem with such posts you're simply going to have
to put me on moderated status or start deleting my
posts.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:36:47 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ohhhh, Robert,

You are such a scientist, Robert, discussing barbs on cats penisis,
in the context of "natural law" and the liberty of rape.

Did you, Robert, sign up for counseling yet??!!

What with you and 'what the fuck's his name" concerned about keeping it
clean.

Read your horseshit, below, and then seek counlseing.

As a professed libertarian, i love you Robert, and I feel real damned sorry
for you.

The best I can do is reccommend counseling.

Ya gotta come up for oxygen some damned time.

You and Bedding (oh gawd, bedding is a fun one to play with. all evil takes
place under **bedding**, right?, with 'components' in play?).

So, Robert, 10 plus years into it, i figure you oughta be able to come up
with ******your****** definition of liberty, without diverting attention to
the babrs on cats penises.

christ, have some sympathy for tim, eh?? he can't handle all this penis
talk.

Come up for oxygen, Robert,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 24 Feb 2003 21:51:59 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 22:36, larry fullmer wrote:

> You and Bedding (oh gawd, bedding is a fun one to play with. all evil
takes
> place under **bedding**, right?, with 'components' in play?).

Nah, a lot of what you/we/people call evil takes place above the sheets
(bedding) or out of the bedroom entirely. ;^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 24 Feb 2003 21:59:59 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 17:16, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> --- Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net> wrote:
> > Hello again Michelle!
> >
> > Michelle wrote to Larry Fullmer...
> >
> > > If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
> > > posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats
> > and
> > > if Robert and I wish to argue about their
> > motivations
> > > for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless
> > you
> > > want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
> > > like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then
> > empty
> > > your trash can.
> >
> > Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a
> > Libertarian
> > discussion group? Maybe such discussion should
> > taking place in
> > private email rather than a libertarian discussion
> > list. I don't see
> > how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.
>
> I was under the impression that minimal censoring of
> conversation occurred on the list and that people here
> could talk about pretty much what they wanted to - so
> long as they avoided making sexist, racist,
> anti-religionist etc. comments (though even with that
> there's quite a bit of leeway seeing as how Larry is
> still a group member). Robert maligned cats in a
> previous post and I did not care to allow such
> improper, speciest statements to stand unchallenged.

Not to mention Frank's annual posting of the Christian Christmas story.
Hey, his list his rules, but that does not mean I can't note any
inconsistencies or double standards that crop up as a result.

> It is also significant that Robert was using his
> assertions about cats as an example to back up some
> argument he was making relating to politics. Are we
> not allowed to argue challenge the validity of
> people's examples if those examples are not directly
> related to libertarian ideals? Please inform me if
> that is the case. since such a rule would definitely
> curtail my ability to post here.

Mine too. Though it seems that the behaviors of ants and ant colonies
doesn't seem to generate a lot of ire among Frank and Larry. Maybe I
don't rate as much as you and Robert. ;^) Or maybe I suppose it was
because I didn't talk about ant penii (yes, I know the term is penises,
but I think penii is funnier ;) )

> I really think your complaints about this thread have
> more to do with your "dislike" of cats than anything
> else. This isn't the first time a non
> libertarian-related post showed up here. Heck, a
> number of the regular posters here aren't even
> libertarians! Moreover, only a week or so ago, you
> were planning to move a private thread regarding the
> existence of God to libnw. Discussions about religion
> and God certainly aren't terribly relevant to
> libertarianism either are they? (At least that's what
> you told me a few months back when I suggested you
> move a conversation Bill and I were having about Wicca
> and monotheism to this list. Perhaps your interest in
> the Christian religion makes you more willing to let
> *that* off-topic conversation slide?)

Hmmm good points Michelle.

> I'm not sorry for my posts and will continue to
> correct false statements about animal behavior when I
> see them (particularly as ideas about animal behavior
> are related to the concept of animal rights which I
> consider very important - and which *is* defintely
> related to politics and libertarianism). If you have
> a problem with such posts you're simply going to have
> to put me on moderated status or start deleting my
> posts.

*smack* What was that>? Sounded like the sound of a gauntlet hitting the
ground. ;^)

(Hey, I'm teaching 12 hrs/day this week, read what you will. ;) )

For the record, *I* think any discussion relating to interaction between
entities is relevant. Rights do no exist in a vacuum, even though many
libertarians and Libertarians acts as if *they* do. Indeed, it is often
fruitful to move to non-personal scenarios in order to see past our own
blinders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 24 Feb 2003 22:43:07 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 06:43, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Michelle Eilers...
>
> Michelle Eilers wrote to Larry Fullmer:
> > > If you aren't interested in a topic don't read the
> > > posts on it. I happen to like talking about cats and
> > > if Robert and I wish to argue about their motivations
> > > for fighting, what concern is it of yours - unless you
> > > want to take part in the discussion? If you don't
> > > like seeing the posts, just hit delete and then empty
> > > your trash can.
>
> You replied, in defence of Michelle:
> > Well stated, Michelle.
>
> Excuse me Bill. But "cat behavioural topics" aren't really "on-topic"

Neither is the Christmas Story you post every year. One is Ok, the other
is not.

I thought, like Michelle, the religion was OT. yet, you brought Larry to
this list with the promise of talking about it.

I thought calling people asshole, and making a rash of personal insults
was off topic. Yet Larry does it here and you praise him for a job "well
done".

Oh well, I guess you wouldn't enjoy the conversations we have around
here (down in Boise), since we often stray into various topics related
by varying degrees.

> on Liberty Northwest. We have enough spam getting in here as it is,

Oh puleeze. You must not get much spam.

> rather than discussing things of little or no relevance such as cat
> behaviour. As Moderator, my call is that if certain individuals wish
> to discuss cat behaviour, they should do all of that in private email,
> or on a discussion list devoted to cat behaviour (or related topic),
> not human Liberty. This is clearly OFF TOPIC.

But if they want to accuse each other of having "short dick"s, that's
OK. Nice moderation job. If Michell and I want to discuss polytheism,
atheism, and multi-theism, and paganism (which *does* relate to several
concepts of libertarianism and government), that's not OK; yet you
posting a Christian religious story is OT, and you and Larry talking
about theism is OK too.

Ok, just making sure I understand the new rules.

Bill Anderson
Poster and Reader
Liberty Northwest Conference

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 24 Feb 2003 22:47:08 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:01, Ben Irvin wrote:
> On 2/24/2003 Frank observed:
>
>
> > Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a Libertarian
> > discussion group? Maybe such discussion should taking place in
> > private email rather than a libertarian discussion list. I don't see
> > how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.
>
> Well the link could be that cats are a very libertarian and liberty loving
> pet, and that dogs are the social-fascists of the animal kingdom (lol).

<sarcasm>
Oh come off it Ben, everyone knows dogs *can't* be social-fascists. They
are too subservient to be fascists. After all, it is man who laces his
order on Dogs, making dog-owners the true fascists. The dog is just a
socialist since they just follow the rules of the fascists.

Every cat owner knows that you don't "own" a cat, they are too hard to
train --too little intelligence (hi Michelle just playing ;^) ).

Not to mention the kind of person that would cage a bird! I mean come
on, how the hell does one cage a free flying bird and say thy are being
for liberty. oh wait, jailing creatures/people doesn't abridge their
freedoms (fairly or not)
</sarcasm>

Yours in humor,
Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: 24 Feb 2003 22:48:09 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 17:37, larry fullmer wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Reading you below, it sounds to me like "Rocky", the cat, was a sadist.
>
> That flies into the face of Roberts claim that they are masochists.

No it wouldn't. Many sadists are masochists and vica-versa. They are not
mutually exclusive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:30:21 -0700
From: "Ben Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

On Mon, 2/24/2002 Bill Anderson observed:

> Every cat owner knows that you don't "own" a cat, they are too hard to
> train --too little intelligence (hi Michelle just playing ;^) ).
Actually, "Cat Fancy" (that also has a doggie magazine) recently
commissioned
a study of cat vs. Dog IQ. One research Vet. thought that dogs were a bit
smarter than cats; three thought that cats were brighter; and five felt, as
I do,
that comparing cats vs. dogs IQ's is like comparing apples and oranges.
Most
generally agreed that a dumb cat or dog has the intelligence of 1 1/2 year
old;
an average cat/dog that of a 2 to 2 1/2 year old; and a very smart, high IQ
that of a 3 year old (does that mean they can become President?). I don't
remember all of the article; but, the Vets considered the Aussie Sheep dog
and
the Border Collie to have the highest doggie brain power, and the Siamese,
Burmese, and Bombays (my current cat) to be the brightest felines. I
remember
that Afghans were among the dumber dogs.

> Not to mention the kind of person that would cage a bird! I mean come
> on, how the hell does one cage a free flying bird and say thy are being
> for liberty. oh wait, jailing creatures/people doesn't abridge their
> freedoms (fairly or not)

How about birddogs! I've never heard of birdcats! Lol.
Besides, a truly libertarian animal (cat) or human appreciates the
art of upland bird hunting.

Ben
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:01, Ben Irvin wrote:
> > On 2/24/2003 Frank observed:
> >
> >
> > > Do you believe that "cat" topics are on-topic on a Libertarian
> > > discussion group? Maybe such discussion should taking place in
> > > private email rather than a libertarian discussion list. I don't see
> > > how this fits anyway. If you do, please educate me.
> >
> > Well the link could be that cats are a very libertarian and liberty
loving
> > pet, and that dogs are the social-fascists of the animal kingdom (lol).
>
> <sarcasm>
> Oh come off it Ben, everyone knows dogs *can't* be social-fascists. They
> are too subservient to be fascists. After all, it is man who laces his
> order on Dogs, making dog-owners the true fascists. The dog is just a
> socialist since they just follow the rules of the fascists.
>

> </sarcasm>
>
>
> Yours in humor,
> Bill
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:43:24 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

uhh, bill,

with you fine tuning sado-masochism, you're pushing "bedding", beyond
reasonable limits.

Good gawd, do you have noooo respect for prudishness??!!

LF

bill wrote:

> No it wouldn't. Many sadists are masochists and vica-versa. They are not
> mutually exclusive.

oh gawd, what does that mean, comes to cats and dogs??!!

not to mention human liberty.

Frank, you did you best, to no avail...

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: cats and pain
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:56:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle Eilers wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I really think your complaints about this thread have
> more to do with your "dislike" of cats than anything
> else. This isn't the first time a non
> libertarian-related post showed up here.

I have always liked dogs. To be fair, I would have to say that since
they have no rational way to understand libertarian concepts, that
extended discussions on their behaviour would also technically be
off-topic.

You're making too much of a big deal over nothing as I see it.
Basically I was only stating my opinion. Which I usually do all the
time on this list.

> Heck, a
> number of the regular posters here aren't even
> libertarians! Moreover, only a week or so ago, you
> were planning to move a private thread regarding the
> existence of God to libnw.

As I mentioned to Larry a night or two ago, that took second chair
after I observed his tenacity in finally exposing some of Robert
Goodman's usually hidden inner characteristics and motivations. I was
so fascinated by Larry's meticulous probing that I abandoned the idea
of starting anything else up that might detract from Larry's efforts.

> Discussions about religion
> and God certainly aren't terribly relevant to
> libertarianism either are they?

They could be. Depending upon how it is handled. At least they come
from a human rational dimension if nothing else, rather than cat or
dog behaviour. For example, I have heard reasonable libertarians
discuss whether Islam is compatible with Libertarian idealism, and
whether or not their theocratic apriori character could ever become
compatible to any notion of individual liberty. Such discussions
would certainly be on-topic within the context of libertarian
discussions.

But since I am not versed in the Koran, or on the Islamic religion, I
wouldn't qualify to lead such a discussion. Others might be better
suited for that. The closest I came to reading the Koran was back in
the mid-1970s, when I was a student at the University of Idaho and
took a "Philosophy of Religion" course.

> (At least that's what
> you told me a few months back when I suggested you
> move a conversation Bill and I were having about Wicca
> and monotheism to this list. Perhaps your interest in
> the Christian religion makes you more willing to let
> *that* off-topic conversation slide?)

Look, again you're making too much of a big deal over this. Every
single active poster on this list tends to veer off-topic, including
myself from time to time. I don't start getting upset as a moderator
until I start getting a plethora of complaints from everyone about the
behaviour of a poster being off-topic. Otherwise, I rarely get real
uptight about the nature of what people say.

> I'm not sorry for my posts and will continue to
> correct false statements about animal behavior when I
> see them (particularly as ideas about animal behavior
> are related to the concept of animal rights which I
> consider very important - and which *is* defintely
> related to politics and libertarianism).

How? How is the behaviour of Civet related in any way to rational
politics or libertarianism? First they don't behave as political or
rational beings. Second, since humans create political institutions
and rationally address theoretical metrology to determine such things
as liberty and human rights, I fail to see any correlation with animal
behaviour in that process. Before you get up tight again, -- only my
opinion.

> If you have
> a problem with such posts you're simply going to have
> to put me on moderated status or start deleting my
> posts.

Chill out Michelle. It never even vaguely entered my mind.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LUZER!!! Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:59:38 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert,

i expected not to be writing you again.

i was wrong, reading your last response to me.

you're such a slippery, slime with words. you don't give a "f" about
liberty, you with many definitions. and you don't give a "f" about
rights, or any other damned thing.

**all** you care about is "winning"", appearing to win the argument, while
at the same time proving you are a luzer. LUZER!!!, robert, that's what you
are.

you're a sick fuck, robert. get counseling. you need it real bad. the
evidence is in.

LUZER!!!!

lf


on 2/22/03 5:28 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> you streniously object, at every opportunity, to those who bring
> ethics
>> into the discussion of politics.
>
> No, I only object when they appear to be making factual claims based on
> ethics. Nothing wrong with ethics in politics! Just don't mke ethical
> statements and then think you've proved something, or given a reason to
> convince people whose ethics differ.
>
>>> Yes -- legal ones. In ethical discussions, the concept always
> turns
>>> out to be circular.
>
>> you dismiss the concept of rights in so far as others claim an ethical
> root
>> for them (even though it's clear "rights", and right v. wrong are
> clearly
>> associated, even in relation to word derivation).
>
> Why the "even though"? Something about the connection between "right" &
> "rights" that's relevant yet not obvious?
>
>> you allow that the word "rights" is a useful one, but only in so far
> as
>> it is used in the context of government law, WHATEVER that law my be,
>
> And not only gov't law, but even in games, contracts, or any other
> context where rules are in play.
>
>> even
>> if the law grants the "right" to own slaves, that "right" is still
> exempt
>> from ethical examination, so you have claimed - arguing that to apply
> ethics
>> to such questions is "circular".
>
> When did I claim it was exempt from ethical examination? All I'm saying
> is that it's pretty stupid to post something here like, "Slavery is
> unethical", or, "Taxes are evil". It's a goddamn libertarian discussion
> group, like you think you're saying something new?! So if someone's
> going to make assertions like that, I want to know what's new; like have
> you discovered a way to PROVE it?
>
>>>> when it comes to legal rights, then, how do you go about
> determining
>>>> which ones you like, and which ones you don't? why, for instance,
> do you
>>>> "not like" slavery?
>
>>> Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I
> can
>>> conceive of.
>
>> well, robert, your above argument is pure sophistry, given your more
>> fundamental claims.
>
>> first, you define liberty as:
>
>>> absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
>>> beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>>> liberty.
>
>> so, given your primary definition, slave owners are just exercising
> their
>> liberty, and they also have a "right" granted by "legal authorities".
>> dunno why you should object, or even what grounds you can stand on
> *to*
>> object, since, with your arguments, you have excluded *any* ethical
> standard
>> as a means of evaluation.
>
> Because if you have slavery, some people are restrained more than
> necessary for their own maximal exercise of liberty, duh!
>
>> but you do, anyway, object to slavery, because you "don't like it".
>
>> and, when backed into the corner of your own absurd arguments, not
> only do
>> you write "i don't like it", you say this:
>
>>> Because it leads farther away from liberty, by any probable path I
> can
>>> conceive of.
>
>> now, robert, in that sentence, you change, entirely, your definition
> of
>> liberty. that ain't fair, robert. in fact it is pure bullshit on
> your
>> part. above you are using liberty to exclude slavery, when your
> primary
>> definition includes ted bundy and slaveholders.
>
> Huh? Restraining Ted Bundy leads closer to liberty, because it allows
> others to exercise more liberty.
>
>> not only do you switch definitions in mid-stream, but you smuggle
> ethics in
>> the back door, with your alternate definition of liberty. you imply
>> liberty is a ***good*** to be persued.
>
> I never said otherwise. Actually what I said was that affairs should be
> arranged to minimize trouble, and most willful entities prefer to avoid
> trouble.
>
>> by you own damned arguments, robert,
>> you have no grounds upon which to imply good or bad. that's bringing
> ethics
>> to the table.
>
> All I did was assume that most people want to avoid trouble. The only
> ethics involved is that I'm a nice enough guy to suggest to other people
> how to avoid trouble. That much ethics I can hardly avoid carrying
> around. You want to avoid trouble, you restrain Bundy.
>
>> you imply liberty is a *good* to be persued, and slavery is a *bad* to
> be
>> avoided, in defense of youR alternate definition of liberty.
>
> Liberty seems to minimize trouble, and few would think avoiding trouble
> is not a good to be pursued. Sure, there are some masochists out there,
> as I pointed out, and some animals seem to be wired to pursue & enjoy
> trouble.
>
>> blatant, convoluted sophistry, robert. you outgha be embarassed to
> the
>> quick, at this point, but i ain't done with ya yet.
>
>> you wrote:
>
>>> If there were 2 willful beings in the world, they could work on rules
>>> for their behavior until they figured out how to interfere against
> each
>>> other's will the least. That'd be seeking liberty.
>
>> wait a "f" minute. again, you switch definitions of liberty. first
> you
>> claim liberty is abridged by rules, even in relation to ted bundy.
> and
>> then you claim minimizing "interference against each other" would be
> seeking
>> liberty!! rotflmao!!, at your convoulted, irrational bullshit.
>
> How is that bullshit? The idea is to adopt such rules that are
> minimally restrictive overall. Absolute freedom of action for everyone
> is impossible, so you try to figure out what rules to have that will
> allow the greatest freedom.
>
>> you even imply minimizing "interference" would be a **good**, AGAIN
>> SMUGGLING ETHICS IN VIA THE BACK DOOR.
>
> When did I ever say ethics could be divorced from all considerations?
> As soon as you start arguing what's best for society, the very fact that
> you care to argue it shows ethical consideration. I said you can't
> PROVE ethics. But you can surely hypothesize the best means to certain
> ends. If you ask me how to get to a certain restaurant, I might be able
> to give you good directions based on my knowledge and guesses about
> traffic, but that's no guarantee the food will be good there.
>
>> you define liberty, below, with two self-contradictory definitions:
>
>>> absence of all restraint of willful beings by other willful
>>> beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>>> liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out.
> That
>>> state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can
> start
>>> at any extreme of one's behavior w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
>>> somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence
> of
>>> restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
>>> extent, and that state is "liberty".
>
>> first, you define liberty as absence of **all** restraint, and then
> you
>> define it as **restraint** to just the right extent. given that, you
> figure
>> you get to switch back and forth any damned time you want - claming
> that any
>> restraint on ted bundy abridges his liberty, and claiming slavery
> should be
>> restrained because it promotes your alternate, mutually exclusive,
>> definition of liberty.
>
> The trouble is that the word is used in different ways, as I wrote
> before, and I tried to pick the one you most likely wanted the answer
> to, even though it be defined in terms of the other. Probably I should
> use 2 terms -- freedom of the individual, and a society of liberty. A
> society of liberty would maximize the total of the freedom of all the
> individuals in it, but in doing so has to restrain their individual
> freedom to some extent.
>
> It's like mapping territories, if you want to bring in territoriality
> from the cat sub-thread. We could have no boundaries, and then fight
> everywhere. Or we could try to draw boundaries as precisely as
> possible. Theoretically everywhere could be mapped as inside one
> territory or another, which would maximize liberty because there'd be no
> grey areas inviting fights, and only infinitesimally thin lines between,
> so as not to unnecessarily restrict freedom.
>
>> i'd claim you were a dummy, but only a real smart human could attempt
> to
>> pull off double-think like that. you're no dummy, you're just an
> asshole
>> with something to prove. maybe you don't think you are as smart as
> you are,
>> or maybe you think your dick is too short. either way, i figure you
> ought
>> to seek counseling.
>
> Why do you have to be insulting about this? We're just discussing
> ideas, and you seem to take it personally.
>
>>>> is it "good" to minimize trouble? and is it "good" to find the
> best
>>>> solutions to "how" we can find? and, is "how" somehow related to
> the
>>>> existing nature of human beings, and the nature of the universe in
>>>> which we live, or is it just an arbitary thing generated by rule
> givers,
>>>> and "wise men".
>
>>> Now I'm confused. How could ANYTHING NOT be related to the nature
> of
>>> the universe? And how could anything relating to human beings not
> be
>>> related to their nature?
>
>> The solution, very approximately stated, is that people get along best
>> when they leave each other alone.
>
>> WHY IS THAT, ROBERT? YOU SEEM TO BE ARGUING THAT 'IS' IMPLIES
> 'OUGHT'?
>
> It's an observation. If people ought not to get along, then they should
> ignore this advice. I can't prove people ought to get along. I can't
> prove life "shouldn't" be hell. But if you examine people's actions,
> they seem to want to avoid trouble. Sometimes they make bad decisions
> in that regard, and I can advise as to better decisions.
>
>> SEEKING YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS A ****GOOD***** SO YOU IMPLY, WHILE
>> CLAIMING THE CONCEPT OF **GOOD** HAS NO RELEVANCE.
>
>>>> and besides, WHY? should folks try to minimize trouble?
>
>>> Because trouble is by definition bad.
>
>> BAD? GOOD? ROBERT, SMART FUCK, YOU JUST MADE AN ETHICAL
> STATEMENT!!!,
>> CONTRADICTING EVERY DAMN THING YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THE IRRELEVANCE
> AND
>> CIRCULARTIY OF ETHICS.
>
>> BUT YOU DO THAT, OFTEN, EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I'M EMBARASSED FOR
> YOU,
>> IF YOU'RE NOT.
>
> Is it not obvious that people prefer a shoe on their foot to a boot to
> the head?
>
>> if nature and the universe have an identity, and humans do too, as you
>> recognize with your "how could anything not be related", there is an
>> "ought" in the "is".
>
>> if you want to stay alive, don't jump off a cliff. it's a natural
> law.
>
>> and for humans, liberty is a natural law. abridging your second
> definition
>> of liberty is like jumping off a cliff. it gets we humans nothing but
>> "trouble", death, destruction, and even extinction. it's a NATURAL
> LAW,
>> given the nature of the universe, and the nature of humans.
>
> If you state it like that, it's fine. It's based on observation &
> experiment, not apodictic.
>
>> unless you get you head out of your "i'm smarter than you" ass, with
>> sophistry to prove it, this is the last damned time i will respond to
> you.
>
> So why not just say people will get along best if they do such-&-such
> instead of all this runaround? You say that I'm the sophist, but you're
> the one who's led this whole thing around in a snake, only to arrive at
> what I thought we all understood to start with.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LUZERs!!!, frank......
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:16:25 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank,

i got damned tired of reading luzers, like lowell, robert, ed, ken, et al,
and resigned once before.

you enticed me back in by announcing you were going to go public in this
list with a private 'tween you, i, and a few others about religion. you
didn't do that. wonder why?

instead i ended up reading goodman, again, just like with his previous
bullshit - that a woman defending herself from rape is limiting the liberty
of the rapist (given his many definitions of liberty).

well, frank, all the slime around this cesspool makes my skin crawl.

i'm going to resign, and then i'm going to take a shower.

i'll leave slimeballs to argue about cat fights.

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LUZERs!!!, frank......
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 21:53:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> frank,
>
> i got damned tired of reading luzers, like lowell,
> robert, ed, ken, et al,
> and resigned once before.

Yeah, I get tired of being insulted by drunks who post
like thirteen year-olds, but I'm still here. How about
respecting opinions that conflict with yours, instead
of screaming and calling them fascists the second they
differ?

Ken

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LUZERs!!!, frank......
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:37:28 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Larry!

Larry Fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> i got damned tired of reading luzers, like lowell, robert, ed, ken, et al,
> and resigned once before.
> you enticed me back in by announcing you were going to go public in this
> list with a private 'tween you, i, and a few others about religion. you
> didn't do that. wonder why?

Truth is, I got sidetracked and forgot about what we were writing about
privately. You're stellar performance in addressing morality, liberty and
slipery sophistry got the higher end of my attention over our previous
religious discussions, which by the way is probably more "on topic" here
anyway. Thanks. And, no one else here seemed to pick up and respond anyway
to our discussions on religion. Hard to respond, when there is nothing to
respond to.

> instead i ended up reading goodman, again, just like with his previous
> bullshit - that a woman defending herself from rape is limiting the
liberty
> of the rapist (given his many definitions of liberty).

Well, so there was something positive to come out of all of this after all!
Why worry about it Larry. You have a wide audience here who are tuning into
a lot of this, although most never respond.

> well, frank, all the slime around this cesspool makes my skin crawl.

It's not all slime, thankfully. Michelle and Phyllis (as you may have
noticed) have also entered into these discussions as well. At least the
sophists and 'word weasils' have been placed on noticed and addressed
appropriately, thanks mostly to your hard work and perserverance.

> i'm going to resign, and then i'm going to take a shower.
> i'll leave slimeballs to argue about cat fights.

You might want to stick around a little longer, after stirring the pot up as
you have, and see how the pot settles.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: what would you do??
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:30:51 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

libertarians often talk as if they were republicans, just a bit more so.
and liberty northwest is brimming with war-hawks, beating the drum for bush.

if you want to hear a real commitment to liberty, listen to paris. it takes
some time to load. so? go pour some coffee or something.

http://www.guerrillafunk.com/paris/sonic_jihad/

lf

next message will be about what a true friend he is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: EMPOWERING THE UNITED NATIONS to stop "terrorism",
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:14:19 -0700
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

Subject: EMPOWERING THE UNITED NATIONS to stop "terrorism",

Americans are angry because terrorists did damage in our country.
Our national pride was hurt.
We swore to obtain justice, or maybe even vengence.

Americans are ready to go to war because we say that Saddam has weapons of
mass destruction.
But, who has THE MOST weapons of mass destruction?
Which is the only country that has ever dropped a
nuclear bomb on a civilian population?

After we EMPOWER THE UNITED NATIONS,
in the name of opposing weapons of mass destruction,
then how will we refuse to live by the rules that we demanded?

Over and over again,
Americans have let leaders drop bombs on other countries,
and we have called this "patriotism".
Now there are people all over the world,
who want to do the same thing to us,
and we call this "terrorism".

Now our leaders tell us that to stop "terrorism",
we must drop more bombs.
How will this cycle end?

Bombing other countries;
which have not invaded us,
is not defense.
That is aggression.
This is all about EMPOWERING THE UNITED NATIONS.

Our leaders are United Nations puppets, who have no intention of saving this
country from United Nations control.
If you doubt that New World Order, (one worlder) stooges have run our
government for generations,
just read Department of State Publication 7277;
which has been in effect since September of 1961

visit:
http://williamcooper.com/7277.htm

At the end, you will find this blunt summary:

"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing
principles
and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state
would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened
U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according
to
the agreed principles of international conduct."

Get US out! of the United Nations
www.getusout.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Hi,I have some works for your business.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:37:07 +0800
From: "Chrono Wang" <wangdiankou@sohu.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi,I have some special photos reflecting Chinese culture,splendid
scenery,plants, flowers,architecture(ancient and modern) in China. I wanna
submit for your business.Is that all right?
If you need, please reply.

Best regards!

Chrono Wang

chronoforever@sina.com

wangdiankou@sohu.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: your turn
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:18:39 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Now it's your turn, Frank, to define "liberty". Explain why the word
and your definition of it are useful. Then expect me to try to pick it
apart like Larry. Maybe I'll throw in a few sick fucks and exclamation
points & insults and alternate lower- and upper-case passages to make it
hard to read for substance. Then maybe I'll wait a few months & respond
again to a post in the thread, and expect you to remember what you'd
written. I may quote, but only after I top post, so it'll be hard to
figure out what points I'm responding to.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: your turn
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:15:36 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 2/24/03 7:18 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> Now it's your turn, Frank, to define "liberty". Explain why the word
> and your definition of it are useful. Then expect me to try to pick it
> apart like Larry. Maybe I'll throw in a few sick fucks and exclamation
> points & insults and alternate lower- and upper-case passages to make it
> hard to read for substance. Then maybe I'll wait a few months & respond
> again to a post in the thread, and expect you to remember what you'd
> written. I may quote, but only after I top post, so it'll be hard to
> figure out what points I'm responding to.
>
> Truly I So Briney,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:55:14 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I've been assigned to your account lnxq
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:23:17 -0500
From: Diane <diane@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

My name is Diane and I’ve been assigned to follow up and
make sure you confirm your account and get your site activated.

To activate your account, all you need to
do is simply click on: MY NEW ACCOUNT
and confirm your information by entering it in the form.

When you go to your site the first time you’ll be given a full tour
and the system will begin making money for you!

Welcome aboard!

Sincerely, Diane

[NEXT]

If you are unsure about this opportunity, please listen in on the QuickPros
Prosperity phone calls. You do not have to participate, you can just listen.
The call schedule is listed below. Once you listen and want to join us come
back to this e-mail and
click next!

QuickPros Prosperity call are MONDAY -thru- FRIDAY
9 pm Eastern / 8 pm Central / 7 pm Mountain / 6 pm Pacific

Dial 512-225-3511 and use PIN 46213# to get to the call.

QuickPros Prosperity

* QuickPros Team leaders show you not only how QuickPros can help you
supplement, replace or exceed your current income, they will show you
the QuickPros entire support system that will assist you every step of
the way.
* QuickPros team leaders will explain the QuickPros Powerline system of
which to build your wealth and business upon.
* Join us for the QuickPros Prosperity Call! You will never regret it.

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

To Be Removed from this mailing list please click below:

Unsubscribe


kjjjrbcjctbahmboy

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: tim bedding as moderator, asking frank to step down!!
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:44:22 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

folks,

a communication from "filthy mouth":

"Members of the Liguria parliament in Geona, Italy, banned the use of the
word "member" to describe one another because it also means "penis", which
"is likely to cause a certian uneasiness among women" (and tim b., i'll
insert!!); hence forth, members will be know as "components" of parliment."
--Harper's Weekly Review

CAN'T YA JUST SEE IT, WITH TIM BEDDING THE MODERATOR?

so, tim, i retract it all. pluuze, so's not to offend your prudishness,
i should have confined myself to speculating about how robert felt about
his "component". i'm very i sorry i offended you with 'dick'. at least,
with my speculation, i implied he has a component. i thought that was quite
gracious of me.

"dung on your face" (just quoting the bible),

larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: MORALITY, RIGHTS & LIBERTY.....
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:38:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert, others,

robert wrote:
responding interspersed below:
>
> It's hard to remember, because Larry's argument seems to be all about
> the meaning of certain words, and then whenever I try to make sense of
> it, he shifts the ground so that the words no longer cover it -- in
> other words, he's engaging in equivocation -- and then blaming ME for
> inconsistency.

Give me one gawd damned example of my equivocation, robert. I challenge
you!! Show me one!!

You on the other hand, are the "master of the art". Now, don't go preening
your feathers. That's no damned compliment!!!!

> (Actually he does worse, bringing up extremes like Ted
> Bundy and then sticking words in my keyboard and claiming me to be a
> sick fuck.

Well, unlike a "circular ethical argument", i figure it was just
'commonsense' to call you a sick fuck for claiming, as you did, that others
who had practiced you proposed "relaxation techniques" would still be
violating ted bundy's liberty, should they choose to constrain him.

Yeah, Ted Bundy was an extreme, and so was Hitler, and so is that sick fuck,
George Bush. One at a time, or millions at a time, "extremes" murder
millions. But you have no damned ethical thing to say about that. Nope.
In the end, arguing for Ted Bundy's liberty, AND YOU DID!!!, YOU AIN'T GOT
"GOOD OR BAD" TO SAY, except when backed into the corner by you own
absurdity.

YOU CLAIMED CONSTRAINING TED BUNDY WOULD BE AN ABRIDGEMNET OF HIS LIBERTY!!!

AND, SICCKO, BEDDING, WRITES COMPLAINING ABOUT FILTH FROM ME.

ROTFLMAO!!!

> And often he even paraphrases me and has me having written
> things I didn't write.)

criminne, no law against praaphrasing. and when the hell did i quote you,
unfaily?? It's an empty claim, without evidence. You sure as hell have
written that ted's liberty would be abridged by action against him. If ya
gotta have the quotes, let me know. I'll hang you on you own petard any
damn time you ask!! Not to mention rub your nose in your own dung.

> And he lets months go by and then brings up
> things I've forgotten in the detail he seems to need. He must save old
> threads and comb thru them periodically for these rants. So I'll try to
> reconstruct what I THINK was being asked about and what I have to say
> about it.

i didn't have to comb through your dung. it was easy to remember. it was
the reason i left the list last time. that time you were arguing rapist
liberty, this time you've argued ted bundy's liberty. at least you
consistent, eh?"
>
> Some authors have defined the words "freedom" and "liberty" separately
> to try to clarify this question -- freedom being the ability or
> allowance for a given actor to do things, and liberty being a societal
> condition, or the condition of an individual in such a society.

I don't give a "f" about "some authors". I asked you what ***you*** think.

> The
> desires of various actors often conflict, in that they can't all be
> satisfied simultaneously.

Oh really, like the desires of the rapists/murder and the victims. I swoon
at your wisdom. I never woulda thought it without ya.

> The desire of Ted Bundy (the example Larry
> wants to bring up now) to kill people conflicts with the desire of
> others not to be killed. Or, for a less emotionally charged example,
> the desire of driver A to occupy an intersection with a vehicle
> conflicts with the desire of driver B to do the same.

hey, let's keep it charged, eh. talking about stop signs bores me.
>
> By restraining certain actions desired by certain actors, which of
> course reduces their freedom of action, one increases the freedom of
> others.

Oh, really, like acting against the rapist to constrain his """"liberty"""",
so you call it.

> Certain rules to do so allow more freedom overall than others.

I'll be damned. I detect that Robert is going to try to sneak an argument
for restraining rapists, and teddy in the back door, again.

The helluva it is, i figure he ***will not*** define "freedom" as he is now
using, or liberty, except as it suits him in the specific argument.

> For instance, to resolve the conflict between Ted Bundy and everyone
> else, one could formulate at least 2 possible rules. Rule 1 would be
> that Ted Bundy gets to kill whomever he wants, and the rest of us lump
> it.

What wisdom, Robert again shows. And, the fact is, rule one is exactly what
robert started out arguing for!!!! Any attempt to constrain teddy would be
an abridgement of Teddy's liberty, given Robert's definition of "liberty".

> This is not much of a gain over having no rule at all to resolve
> the conflict; people around Ted Bundy are then so much in jeopardy that
> the space around him becomes practically off limits, even though most of
> the time there may be nobody he wants to kill, or that even if there
> were people in that space, he wouldn't kill most of them. So the amount
> of freedom in the world in such a case is almost as much reduced as if
> there were no rule at all -- Ted Bundy's gain in freedom would be much
> less than the rest of the world's loss.

Ahhh, utilitarianism raises it ugly head. We gotta balance Teddy's "income"
with the "loss" which accrues to others. Ain't got dung to do with "rights"
(Robert doesn't believe in 'em, unless they are generated by the laws of the
state). And he ain't got dung to do with ethics. But, yet, he claims we
*****ought to***** (ethical claim, though he claims all such are circular),
put gain and loss on the scale.

Well, seperated from "rights" and "liberty", gain and loss are purely
subjective. Who the hell are you to say, Robert, that Teddy's "gain" did
not outweigh the "loss" of others??!! And, yet, with you Gawd like, you
wanna put "gain" & "loss" in **your** scales of justice.

Screw the DUNG of utilitarianism!!! Who the "f" are you, with you circular
arguments, to claim Hitler did not experience more "joy" from gassing the
jews, than they experienced in pain? I figure Hitler got off. So, what the
fuck is you point. Rapists get it off, too. So what the fuck??!!

Looks it's just scale balancing for you, in relation to who ejaculates the
most????!!!!!!! And you write up, in the middle of this, about male cats
having barbs on their penises. ROTFLMAO!!!!

> Rule 2 would require Ted Bundy not to kill people.

Oh, Gawd, Robert is now going to flirt with abridging teddy's
***liberty****, as robert has defined liberty.

> That would reduce his freedom, but enhance everyone
> else's, and bring the world closer to liberty -- a condition in which
> the theoretic maximum of freedom were possible.

Hey, Robert, check out your ***first*** definition of liberty, as you have
built youR dung heap - 'constrainig ted would be constraining his liberty'.

SO, GIVEN YOU DUNG HEAP, WE GET CLOSER TO LIBERTY THE MORE WE CONSTRAIN
IT??!!

So, Robert, dung bettle, the more we constrain liberty (given your first
definition), the more liberty we have, eh?

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU WRITE SUCH DUNG WITH A STRAIGHT FACE??!!
>
> In the case of the street intersection, one could formulate any number
> of rules to resolve the conflict, and have very little to choose between
> them in terms of advance toward liberty. This is why laws against
> murder are practically universal, while different intersections are
> controlled differently. Still, we realize gains by having such
> conventions as having red mean stop and green mean go.

FUCK STOP SIGNS!!! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIBERTY HERE, AND YOU CLAIM ANY
ATTEMPT TO STOP TED BUNDY IS A CONSTRAINT ON HIS LIBERTY (AS YOU DIFINE IT).

"we relaize gains", eh, you write. Who the hell are you to put gains and
losses in the utilitarian balance scale??!! You don't get to put humans in
your "gain &loss", utilitarinan scale. Each one of us humans have a
****right**** not to be measured by you!!!!! We have a ***natural law***
right to measure things for ourselves. Fuck your scales, putting teddy on
one side. I don't give a fuck about *you're* scales. I claim ***my*** own
life!!!, while you want to balance my claim with that of teddy.

> Rights are formulated from experience in cases such as above.

Rights ***are not*** formulated, in relation to your consent, Robert. Rights
are a *****natural law*******.

I have a right to live my own life in my own way. It's a "natural law", and
i don't give a fuck about your utilitarian scales, Robert.

If you don't want to recognize that right, pay the price!

In this list, i figured we had something in common, such as "i own my own my
own life", despite ted bundy's 'buggery' claims, and the scales of robert,
measuring utilitarianism. Not to mention "beddings" claim against filth!!

> It is
> clear that societies that allow people to kill each other don't do as
> well as societies that do, which I thought was what Larry was saying in
> that message that I agreed with, and if one wants to call that a law of
> nature, fine.

FINE, MY ASS, SOCIETIES, AND HUMANS WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE "NATURAL LAW", AND
"NATURAL RIGHTS" PAY THE PRICE - ***EXCEPET FOR THE RAPIST, OF COURSE, WITH
ROBERT DEFENDING 'EM.

> It is arrived at by observation & experiment, like the
> law of gravity, etc. I think that's what Rose Wilder Lane meant by her
> conception of "natural law" and how she could title a book "The
> Discovery of Freedom". That one I can live with.

GOOD GAWD, YOU'VE READ ROSE WILDER LANE. WHAT THE FUCK EXCUSE DO YOU HAVE
FOR YOUR BULLSHIT, THEN??!!

> If you don't understand being in jail as a deprivation of liberty, I
> don't know how to convince you.

hey, dummy, jail is where folks who violate natural law end up (and,
unfourtuantly, lots of others too, but that's another question).

UHH, ROBERT, ARE YOU WRITING FROM JAIL, HAVING BEEN PUT THERE FOR RAPE??
SORRY TO ASK, BUT IT DID ENTER MY MIND.

JAIL, AS IT OUGHT TO BE, IS A PLACE TO PUT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT RESPECT FOR
LIBERTY (IE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS).

APART FROM THE SICKNESS OF THE CURRENT "LAWS OF THE STATE" (WHICH YOU
SUPPORT AS THE ONLY SOURCE OF RIGHTS), FOLKS ARE IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY HAD NO
USE FOR LIBERTY, OR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY, AS A LIBERTARIAN, WITH DEPRIVING RAPISTS AND MURDERS
OF THEIR "LIBERTY", AS YOU DEFINE LIBERTY.

you're such a dung-heap, Robert,

sincerely as i can be,

larry
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert

FUCK YOUR SLY TRIBE, WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS. I AIN'T ONE OF "YOU".
QUIT IT WITH THAT SICK BULLSHIT!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: MORALITY, RIGHTS & LIBERTY.....
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:13:09 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> HOW THE HELL CAN YOU WRITE SUCH DUNG WITH A STRAIGHT FACE??!!

Says it all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I've been assigned to your account sdpo
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:39:39 -0500
From: Alfred <diane@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

My name is Diane and I’ve been assigned to follow up and
make sure you confirm your account and get your site activated.

To activate your account, all you need to
do is simply click on: MY NEW ACCOUNT
and confirm your information by entering it in the form.

When you go to your site the first time you’ll be given a full tour
and the system will begin making money for you!

Welcome aboard!

Sincerely,

Diane

[NEXT]

If you are unsure about this opportunity, please listen in on one of our
phone calls. You do not have to participate, you can just listen. The call
schedule is listed below. Once you listen and want to join us come back to
this e-mail and click next!

The calls are MONDAY -thru- FRIDAY
9 pm Eastern / 8 pm Central / 7 pm Mountain / 6 pm Pacific

Dial 512-225-3511 and use PIN 46213# to get to the call.


Prosperity Phone Call:

* Our Team Leaders show you not only how our system can help you
supplement, replace or exceed your current income, they will show you
theer entire support system that will assist you every step of the way.
* Our Team Leaders will explain the System’s Powerline of which to build
your wealth and business upon.
* Join us for the Prosperity Call! You will never regret it.


This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

To Be Removed from this mailing list please click below:

Unsubscribe


utachxvdbelvrwv

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:27:13 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ROBERT,

you asked Frank, but this is a public list.

Liberty: Do what the "f" you want, so long as you don't "f" with
others with an equal claim. Notice, Robert, Teddy Bundy is excluded,
by all definitions but yours.

Git you head outtta you ass, Robert.

If you want an argument for "natural law" i have an authority to quote.

Yup, i do. You, asshole, via the backdoor.

Quit it with your bullshit word games, or admit that something other than
liberty is driving you.

as sincerely as i can be,

larry

hey, frank, take your time. the sick fucks who claims rapists have a claim
to liberty don't diserve an answer 'till you're ready.

on 2/24/03 7:18 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> Now it's your turn, Frank, to define "liberty". Explain why the word
> and your definition of it are useful. Then expect me to try to pick it
> apart like Larry. Maybe I'll throw in a few sick fucks and exclamation
> points & insults and alternate lower- and upper-case passages to make it
> hard to read for substance. Then maybe I'll wait a few months & respond
> again to a post in the thread, and expect you to remember what you'd
> written. I may quote, but only after I top post, so it'll be hard to
> figure out what points I'm responding to.
>
> Truly I So Briney,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:17:43 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:

> Liberty: Do what the "f" you want, so long as you don't "f" with
> others with an equal claim.

Oh, so you're for affording everybody the equal right to murder each
other, as long as they don't interfere with each other's killing
sprees???!!!

GET OUTTA HERE YOU SICK FUCK LARRY YOU MAKE ME VOMIT ALL OVER THE
KEYBOARD AND SHORT OUT THE INTERNET!!!!

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: POOR, POOR PITY ROBERT.....
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:50:33 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert, Frank, Others,

good gawd, after ten years of presenting himself as the true intellectual on
this list, robert appeals to Frank for pity.

on 2/24/03 7:18 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> Now it's your turn, Frank, to define "liberty". Explain why the word
> and your definition of it are useful. Then expect me to try to pick it
> apart like Larry. Maybe I'll throw in a few sick fucks and exclamation
> points & insults and alternate lower- and upper-case passages to make it
> hard to read for substance. Then maybe I'll wait a few months & respond
> again to a post in the thread, and expect you to remember what you'd
> written. I may quote, but only after I top post, so it'll be hard to
> figure out what points I'm responding to.

Ooooh, robert, you have been sooo abused by me, with you appealing to Frank
for pity. COME ON, FRANK, YOU ARE GAWD OF THIS LIST. I HOOPE YOU'RE AN
"OLD TESTAMENT" GAWD!!!!!

WEll, dunno about Frank, but i have ****no**** pity for you, Robert,
extending "liberty" to rapists and murderers

I don't favor capital punishment, but if i did, you'd be on that list, as
a truly sick fuck, extending your "liberty" to teddy and rapists.

how **any** human can get there head as far up their ass as you, and still
claim to be a libertarian, is beyond my comprehension.

stick your head up your ass, you'll get oxygen deprived. It's a **natural
law**!!!!, robert. And you are as "deprived" as i've met, still being
alive.

get lost, asshole, or come up for oxygen.

LIBERTY (BUT NOT FOR RAPISTS/MURDERERS, NOR FOR THOSE WHO EXTEND LIBERTY TO
THEM),

LARRY

>
> Truly I So Briney,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscri