9:09 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|


Go to brain.blogmosis.com
This is my new location for the same old stuff you've come to expect for me.

Reset your bookmarks or blogrolls accordingly. Thank you.
|W|P|93574977|W|P||W|P|9:00 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Something I don't Get

This isn't intended to be pushy or cruel or anything. It is an honest

For those of you who want the US to be more like England, Europe, or
Canada (higher taxes, more services like universal health care, extremely
strong gun control), why don't you just move there?

Here's what I mean: You obviously want a certain sort of government.
This government already exists elsewhere. The government and social
situation here is not to your liking, but it is to the liking of a
significant number of other people (numbering in the 10s of millions, if not
100s of millions). There is no other nation that these people can go
to that has the same level of freedom to own a gun for self-protection,
same level of military spending (to ensure way of life), same level of
low taxation and emphasis on self-determination (earn your own health
coverage or do without).

Since what you want already exists elsewhere, and what I want exists
only here, why do you feel you have the right to turn this place into
your utopian ideal? And if you look at England, there are hints that
things are taking a downward trend in such things like crime and health
coverage; so if it doesn't work there, why do you want to risk sending
this nation on the same downward spiral? After all, if things don't fall
apart there, you can always go there; but if it does fall apart, and
you get the US on the same path, there won't be a place of law, freedom
and self-determination anywhere in the world.

If you love the flatlands of Kansas, you shouldn't waste your time
trying to level the mountains of Montana.

If you don't like rock music, you can always change the dial to a
classical station; why try to put the rock station out of business?

So this is a serious question: why don't you move to a country that already has the govt and economic system you crave? Is there something about the United States you can't get elsewhere? And are you sure becoming a socialist state that prohibits guns won't eliminate what you like about the United States, too?

I repeat: this is a serious question, and I'd really appreciate serious answers.
|W|P|93509975|W|P||W|P|8:58 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Winds of Change

No, I'm not talking about the Blog of that name, or that old crappy
Scorpion song.

Life is a process, obviously. We as a people/society have a life of
learning, just as individuals do. We tried Prohibition, and learned that
it wouldn't work. We have wrestled with, and are still wrestling with,
the idea of abortion as a right. We have come to understand that
humans may not be kept in slavery, and that we must not use words to justify
treating people as non-human. We have learned more tolerance for those
not like "us" (the majority, however you define it).

The common individual learned about mutual funds and day trading in the
80s and 90s. And we learned quite a bit more about international
diplomacy and war over the last 2 years.

Well, there is a trend of understanding toward law and the constitution
these days. At least it seems so to me. Maybe I'm just learning more
and so I'm projecting that onto people at large.

But there had been a movement, starting from the 60s (I assume; it may
have been with FDR's New Deal) toward Judicial Activism. According to
my understanding, there was a sub-culture of people who believed their
goals were correct, and so correct that their agenda must be
implemented by any means. Anyone to stupid or selfish or shortsighted to agree
could be dismissed.

And so could the law.

So judges began writing law. They began following their consciences in
how they ruled on cases, rather than on precedent and the Constitution.
They started calling the Constitution "a living, breathing document",
meaning that if the Constitution didn't specifically proscribe or
prescribe something, it was fair game for a judge to do whatever seemed
right. It has gotten to the point where if something WAS explicitly written
in the Constitution, revisionist interpretations could be used to
justify ignoring the written words (think, "The right to bear arms
shall not be infringed).

Now Democrats are using interesting arguments to basically deny
appointments of any judge who doesn't adhere to the Democrat agenda. This is
a true miscarriage of justice.

Here's a good explanation of what's going on:


Excerpt from the above article:

These examples beg the question: Is society without power to regulate
partial-birth abortion? Or possession of child pornography? No. Rather,
the federalism-based limitations only specify that it is not
appropriate for Congress to regulate here. The states may (and many already do)
regulate in these areas so long as they do not offend constitutional
guarantees of privacy or free speech in doing so.

I think the article also makes it clear exactly how the judicial
branch's powers have been misused. Spreading ideas like this around will
take root in fertile minds, people who consider and think, rather than
just react. It will take hold, and you will see a new era dawn in
government, politics, and law.

I'm not saying that the goals of the Democrat party are not good. But
you cannot overthrow the Constitution just because it is an obstacle to
implementing well-intentioned plans. The Constitution saves us from
selfishly evil plots as well as poorly-planned but well-intentioned
plots, mainly by slowing down the process to ensure everyone has time to
discuss, consider, and improve. The collective understanding of justice
by the whole people of the United States can be improved, and injustices
can be rectified. It just takes time and proper attention to the

Any idea that is correct will be accepted by a large enough majority to
bring it about. And if not, it can be overturned. The Prohibition is
an excellent example of that. The elimination of slavery, universal
suffrage, changing the voting age; all are excellent examples of the
responsiveness of the Constitution to necessary changes.

You cannot just ignore the Constitution or attempt to bypass it. It IS
the law of the land, and if you set a precedent of ignoring it for your
benefit, eventually someone will use that same precedent to your
detriment. Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it.

If you hate the Constitution and the Constitutional process so much,
you can always attempt to win support to write a new one. Or you can try
to find another country with a Constitution you like better. But the
vast majority of citizens of the United States like this one pretty
well, so get used to it. And stop trying to weaken it. Because eventually
we may get mad enough to do something to stop the people who would
undermine the basis of our legal system and society.
|W|P|93509863|W|P||W|P|8:56 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Check this out

This is a bill worth supporting:

From NRO
|W|P|93509755|W|P||W|P|8:55 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Poverty and Welfare Reform

"The analysts didn't cause the bubble. They fed on it, but let's be
honest: the real cause of the bubble was the willingness of a large number
of Americans to believe that they could make large sums of money
without working."

The quote comes from this article
about reaching a settlement over "improprieties of the Bubble Economy".

But the reason I'm quoting it is that this is exactly one of the main
problem our society faces right now. Too many people think they can
live, and live comfortably, without having to work to earn it. Attempts
to regulate welfare result in piteous whining about dignity and worse.

If you are not working to support yourself, you should take what is

Sound harsh? Sure. You don't raise quality children by letting them
have whatever they want. Limits and rules and restrictions channel
behavior and build good character. If you haven't learned it as a child,
there's no reason the govt can't impose a work ethic on you later in
life. Or let you live on gruel if you choose to opt out.

Yeah, there are people who are temporarily in difficult straights. I
have no problem helping them live at the hamburger-helper and
salvation-army-clothes level for a year or two while they re-orient themselves.
The military requires a reasonable degree plan and evidence you are
following that plan before they cough up cash for tuition assistance. It
would be child's play to require the same thing of welfare recipients.
Any other problems can be solved by creativity and effort on the part
of the individual, if they don't waste time whining.

Go re-read that sentence with this modification: "the real cause of
poverty is the willingness of large numbers of Americans to believe they
could enjoy extensive luxuries without working." Still a true

And here's the evidence (if not out-and-out proof):

Instead, since the [welfare reform] was enacted, welfare caseloads have
been cut in half. The poverty rate has fallen from 13.8 percent in 1995
to 11.7 percent in 2001. Some of this may have been the good economy
(though welfare case loads continued to rise during the '80s boom), but
even during the current recession, welfare dependence has continued to

Nearly 3 million children have risen out of poverty since 1995, and the
decreases in child poverty have been most pronounced among black
children. The overall child poverty rate was 20.8 percent in 1995, compared
with 16.3 percent in 2001. And in 2001, despite a poor economy, the
poverty rate among black children reached its lowest point in history.

Link to whole article
|W|P|93509710|W|P||W|P|8:49 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

The Final Word on Sen. Santorum

Cool name he's got, actually...

Anyway, here's the bottom line:

"Conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) was asked by homosexual
groups to resign from the Senate Republican leadership last week after he
publicly agreed with existing Supreme Court precedent on the issue of
whether there is a constitutional right to all adult consensual sex.

The Court seemingly settled this issue seventeen years ago in Bowers v.

The whole article is pretty revealing, including the fact that the wife
of a Democrat presidential hopeful inserted the word
"gay" into Sen. Santorum's remarks, altering the meaning and impact of his
statement in a negative direction.

So much for the impartiality of the press.

Here's the whole

It doesn't appear to have a unique html line, so it may disappear after
the writer pens another article, dunno. Read it while you can.

Santorum Defends Constitution
By David Freddoso

Conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) was asked by homosexual groups
to resign from the Senate Republican leadership last week after he
publicly agreed with existing Supreme Court precedent on the issue of
whether there is a constitutional right to all adult consensual sex.

The Court seemingly settled this issue seventeen years ago in Bowers v.
Hardwick, the case that upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law. But the
question has risen again this year in Lawrence v. Texas, which is a
challenge to Texas's anti-sodomy law. Homosexual groups are asking the court to
use this case to overturn Bowers and declare that private adult
consensual sex is a "fundamental right." (See box on page 8.)

Controversy exploded around Santorum after an Associated Press reporter
misrepresented his remarks. The reporter is the wife of a prominent
Democratic operative.

Lara Jakes Jordan-wife of Sen. John Kerry's (D.-Mass.) presidential
campaign manager and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
official Jim Jordan-added the word "gay" in parentheses to a statement
Santorum made during an hour-long interview. Santorum in fact was accurately
reflecting the very question that homosexual groups have put to the

In her AP report, Jordan quoted Santorum as follows: "If the Supreme
Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your
home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy,
you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have
the right to anything."

But Santorum had not used the word "gay," according to a transcript of
the interview later released by AP. Jordan did not reply to messages
left by Human Events on her mobile and office telephones.

The AP transcript quotes Santorum as saying: "If you say, there is no
deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't
be surprised what you get." This and other parts of the transcript
appear to strengthen Santorum's explanation of his remarks-that states will
lack legal grounds to outlaw consensual incest or bigamy if the Supreme
Court creates a new constitutional right to private, consensual sexual

According to briefs filed in Lawrence v. Texas by the petitioners and
others, including the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil
Liberties Union, this is exactly what the pro-homosexual groups are asking
the Court to do.

Stands His Ground

Appearing Wednesday at a town hall meeting in Williamsport, Pa.,
Santorum asserted that the controversy was the media's fault, and that he had
no plans to resign his leadership position or apologize.

"I put forward arguments which I happen to believe in," he said. "I'm
going to stand by those comments and will stand by that argument. . . .
It's unfortunate that [the remarks] were taken out of context and
portrayed in a way that didn't really reflect the discussion, but that's the
way the media sometimes acts."

Nonetheless, television and print news outlets began reporting that
Santorum had "equated," "likened" or "compared" homosexuality with incest,
bigamy and adultery-apparently because of Jordan's original
misquotation. In spite of AP's later release of the transcript-which pointedly did
not include Jordan's insertion of "gay"-television and print media were
still misreporting Santorum's statement as late as Thursday.

The New York Times, seizing upon the misquotation, even called
Santorum's statement "highly unlearned." Santorum's discussion of the issue,
however, was far more learned than any of his critics. Even his choice of
words arose from the court's 1986 Bowers decision.

In Bowers, Justice Byron White, an appointee of Democratic President
John F. Kennedy, wrote that if the court created a constitutional right
to consensual sex that took place within the home, "it would be
difficult . . . to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving
exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even
though they are committed in the home."

Although Santorum did not compare sodomy to incest or bigamy, his full
remarks were bound to be controversial because he did express moral
disapproval of homosexual behavior-as opposed to people who have a
homosexual orientation. Although this is a traditional Christian view-hate the
sin, love the sinner-few politicians in Washington these days have the
moral courage to express it, even when a major case revolving around
the issue is pending in the Supreme Court.

"I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum said, according to the
AP transcript. "I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with
acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional
heterosexual relationships."

Even as a Washington Post's editorial blasted Santorum Thursday for
equating homosexuals with "bigamists and those who practice incest," a
news story in the paper quoted Chester Gillis, chairman of Georgetown
University's Theology Department, as stating that Santorum, who is
Catholic, was "reflecting Catholic theology very clearly."

Told that this was the Catholic position, liberal Rep. Jerrold Nadler
(D.-N.Y.) remarked on FOX News' "Hannity and Colmes, "I think that's a
bigoted position."

A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that there
were no plans within that body to defend Santorum.

The White House dodged the issue, offering an evasive response to
reporters Wednesday. "The President typically never does comment on anything
involving a Supreme Court case, a Supreme Court ruling or a Supreme
Court finding-typically," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

The President did comment on the recent Michigan affirmative action
case, however, and the Justice Department routinely files briefs, and
sometimes makes oral arguments, in Supreme Court cases. The Administration
did not file a brief in Lawrence v. Texas.

Social conservatives, however, rushed to Santorum's defense. Among the
many writing and speaking in favor of Santorum were Media Research
Center President Brent Bozell, columnist Marvin Olasky, Family Research
Council President Ken Connor, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer,
Free Congress Foundation President Paul Weyrich, and Concerned Women for
America President Sandy Rios.

Appearing on CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer last Wednesday, conservative Sen.
Jim Bunning said when asked about the controversy: "Rick Santorum has
done a great job, and is solid as a rock, and he's not going anywhere."
|W|P|93509363|W|P||W|P|8:45 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Some Points Related to Homosexuality

I'm going to reprint this in full. I don't agree with everything he
says. I don't have the source for everything he asserts. But I do think
he makes good points worth considering and discussing.

Here ya go:

Homosexuality: An attempt at clarity

Dennis Prager

The homosexual is equal in God's eyes to the heterosexual.
Parents must love their children, including the child who is
homosexual. At the same time, a homosexual child must understand a loving
parent's sadness over his or her inability to sexually love a person of the
opposite sex.
Society has the right and obligation to prefer heterosexuality to
homosexuality. It is better for children -- they need a mother and a father.
And it is better for the individual -- a woman makes a man a better
person; and a man does the same for a woman. Advocating heterosexuality as
society's ideal no more implies bigotry or "homophobia" than advocating
marriage implies bigotry against singles or "single-phobia."
Societies that regard homosexual sex as the equivalent of heterosexual
sex have far more homosexual sex. Ancient Greece esteemed man-boy sex,
and consequently had far more of it than modern society.
Men who are not sexually attracted to women have no choice about being
homosexual. Proponents of heterosexuality should, therefore, use the
word "choose" sparingly when referring to homosexual men.
We do not know why people are homosexual. The cause may be genetic, or
it may be neonatal, but we have nothing approaching proof for either
explanation. It may also be psychologically induced, and in some cases
this can be shown (e.g., gay men who were subjected to sexual contact
with a male when they were boys). In none of these cases can a homosexual
be said to have chosen to be one.
Many women in lesbian relationships, however, can find some men
sexually desirable. Such homosexuals can be said to exercise some degree of
A significant percentage of women in lesbian relationships have come to
those relationships primarily as a result of sexual abuse by a man.
Bisexuals, by definition, exercise choice. They can be asked (though
not legally coerced) to limit their sexual behavior to heterosexual
It is unfair to a child who can be adopted by a married couple to be
adopted by a same-sex couple. Children have a basic human right to a
mother and a father.
The Boy Scouts have the right and the duty not to place gay men in
situations where they are alone with boys -- just as the Girl Scouts should
not place heterosexual men in positions where they are alone with
girls. Yes, most gay men control themselves around boys; but the
disproportionate sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests suggests that some
proportion of gays will not be able to control this desire.
Jewish and Christian denominations are right to refuse to ordain avowed
practicing homosexuals. At the same time they are not required to ask
prospective clergy what their sexual orientation is. Sexual orientation
is the individual's business; publicly proclaimed sexual behavior is
the denomination's business.
Consensual, private sex between adults is not always acceptable. Even
most gays judge consensual adult incest such as father-daughter or
brother-sister (or brother-brother) sex wrong. Many gays even believe it
should be illegal. Therefore, heterosexuals who draw their line of
acceptance at homosexual sex are not necessarily any more bigoted than gays
who draw their line at consensual incest.
The gay movement's constant linking of gay equality with equality for
the trans-gendered (someone who acts like the opposite sex) undermines
its moral credibility and feeds the belief that the movement seeks to
undermine Judeo-Christian and Western liberal society. It is one thing to
demand that gays not be fired for their private behavior or sexual
orientation. But it is quite another to demand that men who wear women's
clothing in public must be allowed to keep their jobs.
"Homophobic" is an epithet; often as ugly as "fag." Activists for
homosexuality-heterosexuality equivalence should make arguments, not smear
all those who believe in the heterosexual ideal. Likewise activists for
the heterosexual ideal must never deny the humanity or dignity of the
homosexual human being.
Anyone, including homosexuals, should have the right to name
beneficiaries in case of death, to name the visitors they wish in case of
illness, etc. That is elementary decency.
Marriage is the bedrock institution of society, and must not be
redefined. If it is, there are no moral or logical grounds to prevent
redefining marriage to include more than two people.
Gay activist groups are radical organizations. Opposing them no more
renders a person anti-gay than having opposed communist parties rendered
one anti-worker.
None of these propositions in any way contradicts the opening
statement: The homosexual is equal in God's eyes to the heterosexual.

|W|P|93509156|W|P||W|P|8:45 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|


has been linked throughout the blogiverse. You've probably already
encountered it. I'm linking it on the off-chance you haven't.

I hope you enjoy reading it. It should move you. If it doesn't, it
doesn't. Those who don't get it... ...don't. Nothing pejorative
about that; you just don't see the world the same as we do. I don't
think I will debate anyone on this, but you can try me.
|W|P|93509128|W|P||W|P|8:44 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Request for Help/Guidance

One of the things I like about Jo at Seething (a.k.a. Commentary du
Jour) is that she fearlessly puts forth her liberal views with humor,
consistency, fairness, and calmness. She does not engage in ad hominem
attacks, distortion, misrepresentation of facts, one-sided suspect
sources, vitriol, anger, insults, childish sulks, or dogged ignoring of facts
and evidence that don't fit her hypothesis. In short, she's different
from the other left/liberal/democrat blogs I've stumbled across.

So I'm asking for help in finding more blogs like hers.

Is there a lefty Bill Whittle at eject!eject!eject! ? Is there a
Democrat Steven den Beste, who
can explain with logic and analogy exactly why the liberal agenda might
work? Is there a liberal Ron
(formerly Juan Gato), using sarcastic wit to skewer
ridiculousness on the conservative side?

Liberals complain about the shrillness of Ann Coulter, but fail to
notice that every single one of their spokespeople are just as bad, and are
the rule rather than Ann's exception. Other than Jo, I haven't
encountered a liberal who can actually defend their views. They mouth the
party line, but start falling apart as you deconstruct their arguments.
They start falling back on ad hominem attacks, avoidance, splitting fine
hairs, strawmen, etc, and generally end up incoherent. Please note,
I'm not saying they are giving arguments I disagree with (as has happened
with Jo and some other people I have disagreed with). You can usually
tell when your argument travels to a point that you can point to the
different assumptions. No, my meaning is the people who get more and
more angry as you ask questions, people who provide inequitable thresholds
of proof between their own position and yours, people who are not
interested in a discussion as much as a soapbox. People who refuse to
listen or acknowledge a viewpoint other than their own.

For instance, I can't tell you how many times I've offered up the point
on liberal posts that it is entirely possible and likely that there
were multiple justifications for invading Iraq, and any one was
sufficient. I haven't gotten a single liberal to respond to that idea. Most
continue to choose what they feel was the weakest argument was for
invasion and try and disprove it. Since the contents of several 55-gallon
drums have been shown to contain nerve agent by two field tests (and are
currently being tested in a lab), I'm wondering what they'll try to use

Help me find liberals who are willing to discuss politics and issues
rationally and civilly! (meaning, NOT like James Carville or Paul
Begala...or Bill O'Reilly, for that matter).
|W|P|93509062|W|P||W|P|7:44 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Summary on Sen. Santorum

From following various posts/comments on various blogs and news sites,
I've come to the conclusion that for the most part, everyone is
ignoring what he actually said in order to use the debate to advance their own
agendas. I've seen all sorts of people claim that the Senator is
calling for intrusion into private lives, which is absurd. I've seen people
insist there is currently a right to complete privacy within the home,
which is shortsighted.

Let's get it straight, people: Sen. Santorum's beliefs about
homosexuality were entirely tangential to the issue. His statement was a
criticism of judicial activism, and the possible consequences arising from
monkeying around with the constitution and legal system. Nothing more.

But too many people have seized on a Republican making a statement that
included the word 'homosexual' and misquoted, exaggerated, distorted,
and used other misleading tactics to try and garner support for changing
law through extra-legal means. The fact that it will eventually erode
the constitution to everyone's detriment seems to be entirely of no
consequence to these people. I find that dispicable.

You want to argue that sodomy laws are silly and should be repealed?
Fine. But it does your position no credit to start an ill-advised and
unnecessary argument by distorting someone's statement.

As an exercise, try to estimate how many people would leave negative
comments if I stopped with the previous sentence. How many veiled
accusations of homophobia or 'hate speech' might be leveled? Consider how
limited my readership currently is.

And then stop to notice that I haven't said one thing for or against
sodomy laws in this post or anywhere else.

I've said other things that have been interpreted as
anti-homosexual...but that depends on your viewpoint, I guess, since I've always been
against violence or discrimination being perpetrated on them. Just goes
to show ya, you cannot take one aspect of someone's opinion and try to
interpret the rest.
|W|P|93439723|W|P||W|P|7:41 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

What I Have Learned

Sure, I'm not that old. But here's what I feel has been demonstrated
beyond all reasonable doubt. So let the unreasonable arguments begin!

A) In capitalism, if you bring value into the world, money will find
you. Based on this, a little thought and lots of hard work will ensure
your security in this lifetime. No matter who you are, no matter what
obstacles have been placed before you. Make yourself valuable, and you
will never want. That takes effort, and risk. But you'll gain
immeasurably by earning your own success.

B) Stay out of debt. Avoid paying interest whenever you can. Aside:
if a car dealer offers you 0% interest or a rebate, you might want to
compare...I've been shown that the rebate is often a better deal. But
NEVER carry a balance on your credit card. You're just throwing away

C) If you seek pleasure, it will take greater and greater levels of
stimulation to achieve satisfaction. This is true of sex, drugs,
thrill-seeking, material goods, etc. But seek peace instead, and you will find
a lasting pleasure.

D) Socialism doesn't work for bunches of reasons. Here's three: 1)
there is no incentive for individual effort, so everything is mediocre at
best. 2) it can never be implemented without force and massive
curtailment of liberty. 3) Ideology trumps expertise, meaning you always have
intellectuals making decisions about issues with which they have no
first-hand knowledge or experience (a great recipe for calamity).

E) Judicial Activism may represent the gravest threat to freedom. It
is done as a way to circumvent traditional protections that assure our
freedoms. The great irony is that Judicial Activism is perpetrated by
those who have good intentions; they are mortgaging future, long-term
liberty for the advancement of short-sighted agendas. Imagine a
corporation trying only to maximize profit THIS quarter without considering the
years to come.

F) The end does not justify the means, and good intentions are
worthless if you do not have a coherent plan for implementing, evaluating, and
adjusting your ideas.

G) The overwhelming majority of the Democrat leadership is manipulating
the social conscience of its constituents to seize and hold power.
They care nothing for actually improving situations; in fact, most prefer
to keep people poor and poorly educated, because they are then more
likely to vote Democrat. As such, Democrat leaders and decisionmakers
will use any tactic to advance their acquisition of power (see Judicial
Activism, above).

H) Hate is a bad thing. Underneath our skin, we are all the same. We
all want the same two things: Love and Security. The corrupt who seek
after power want it as a substitue or means of ensuring either Love or
Security. Love includes adulation and control over people's actions.
Security includes material goods and safety.

I) I have felt uncomfortable with depicting Osama and Saddam as 'evil'.
Their evil was not qualitatively different than anyone else's. It was
quantitavely different, yes. But someone who uses the court to get
revenge in a divorce, or spreads lies around a school to get even, or
cheats employees to preserve their company, or angles to get a promotion on
the backs of co-workers, all commit evil. Deliberately hurting someone
else to further your own goals and aims is evil, no matter who does it,
no matter who is the victim.

J) Socialism, in all its incarnations, has produced nothing of any
value. American capitalism alone has produced advancement after
advancement to the benefit of all mankind. Even the poor in third world
countries live better now than they did 200 years ago, and the poor of
2nd-world nations live better than all but the corrupt elite of a socialist
system. Capitalism has brought dangers and inequities as well. But
capitalism has proven itself to be the most fluid system imaginable; anyone
can improve his situation, and the problems it has caused are usually
solved by capitalism, as well. Why? Money is an abstract
representation of the effort of a person. Allowing money to move freely to where
people want it means that when any problem gets big enough to attract the
attention of enough people, capital flows there and the problem is
fixed. It may seem scary to those who don't understand it, filled with
hair-raising narrow escapes...but the more you learn, the more you see
capitalism is like a roller coaster. It's only seems like you are going
to crash into the ground or fly off into space, but in reality it's all
moving on rails.

K) You have the ultimate responsibility for your situation in life. It
may sound trite, but even if given lemons, you always have the choice
to make lemonaid, or sell them to someone else who can, or plant the
seeds to start your own citrus orchard, or even just sit there with a sour
look on your face.

Well, that's enough for now. I started to go off on a tangent, and
moved farther into gray areas. I'll do this concept again soon, I'm sure,
as other points strike me.
|W|P|93439601|W|P||W|P|7:41 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Notice of Departure

I'm going to be moving my blog to blogmosis soon. I'll provide a final
notice when everything gets transferred over. Just as advance notice,
the address will be http://brain.blogmosis.com

My contact email will remain brainfertilizer@yahoo.com