shopify analytics tool



The Peanuts Movie

Since Mom's accident, I spend a lot of time at her house. We often watch movies.

Well, I had gotten the DVD of The Peanuts Movie through Netflix. Mom and I had enjoyed the various Peanuts specials over the years. We hoped that this one didn't get too messed up.

This one had something different. Something unexpected. Something wonderful.

I don't agree with the radical feminists on most topics. By the way, I'm calling them FamousFeminists now. But there was a FamousFeminist point or two that caught my attention. In many YouTube videos, they will tell you that objects are acted on and a person acts. Now of course they wrap it up in the politics of victimhood and will tell you that men always objectify women no matter what, That's not true and never was. But that is a topic for another time. Because right now you want to know what in blazes this has to do with a children's film.

For the first time I can remember, Charlie Brown stopped being an object and started being a person. In the film, he acts on things. He chooses to make things better. He helps his sister even if it costs him. He's honest when he gets credit for something that somebody else did. He keeps moving even as life knocks him down. This one film turned Charlie Brown from wishy-washy to a hero.

And for the first time, you can see just how much Snoopy cares for Charlie Brown. Snoopy sees things in Charlie Brown that others don't see. Snoopy believes in Charlie Brown when Charlie Brown doesn't believe in himself. Yes, Snoopy is very anthropomorphic, but the love is pure canine.

You've got to see this film.


Public blasphemy

There's a modern American blasphemy.

US States Form Coalition to Combat Climate Change, Fraud
Top law enforcement officials from states around the nation have banded together to protect progress on climate change by taking on the fossil fuel industry.

Democratic attorneys general from 15 states, Washington, D.C., and the Virgin Islands joined with former Vice President Al Gore, who praised a "first-of-its-kind" joint effort to reduce carbon emissions, hold polluters accountable for fraudulent claims, and defend the Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan" against legal challenges.

"We cannot continue to allow the fossil fuel industry or any industry to treat our atmosphere like an open sewer or mislead the public about the impact they have on the health of our people and the health of our planet," Gore said.

Get that? The science is settled. The dogma is not to be questioned. Thou shalt not dissent!

It gets worse as it plays out. Wait a couple of months and things get downright nasty.

Reason Foundation Included in Climate-Change Dragnet Subpoena to ExxonMobil
The heart of this anti-free-speech effort has been a series of subpoenas to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant supply various attorneys general with all communications it has had since January 1, 1977 with groups that address scientific and policy issues with respect to climate change. On Tuesday, one of those subpoenas to ExxonMobil, a March 15 fishing expedition by former EPA lawyer and current Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, was made public, revealing the wide extent of this intimidation campaign. How wide? One of the organizations mentioned in Walker's subpoena is the Reason Foundation, which publishes this website.

Reason is far from alone. The subpoena lists nearly 100 think tanks, advocacy groups, lobbyists, and university centers with which Walker believes ExxonMobil may have had communications concerning "research, advocacy, strategy, reports, studies, reviews, or public opinions regarding Climate Change." These include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, the George Mason University Law and Economics Center, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, the Cato Institute, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, the Heritage Foundation, and on and on.

The attorneys-general are seeking to discover some sort of an ExxonMobil-financed conspiracy aimed at undermining public confidence in the scientific consensus that man-made climate change is real and a big problem. Some who are worried about the deleterious effects of climate change have grown weary of trying to persuade their fellow citizens that the scientific evidence is on their side, and so now want to outlaw expressions of disagreement with that consensus.

Understand? There were no laws broken.

The AGs are looking for a "conspiracy aimed at undermining public confidence in the scientific consensus."

Behold the new blasphemy!!!

Thou shalt not dissent!!!!!!!

Under penelty of law!!!!!!!!!


The system is rigged

So now it looks like Trump and Clinton are the nominees for President.

There are some things to keep in mind.

The deals in smoke-filled backrooms have been a part of party politics since the beginning of the republic. It's one of the things that George Washington warned against.

The purpose of the party system is to control who gets to run for office and to keep the public out of the process.

Yes, normal citizens ARE NOT ALLOWED to select the nominees. They are presented with a choice.

I think the first step is to acknowledge that we're not talking about "the" system. That's the smoke & mirrors the elites have used for years.

That's the thinking that got us into this mess. Either/or, as if those are the only possible choices.

We're allowed one from Column A or one from Column B.

Eventually the only choices we're given are reprehensible. You end up voting for the "least bad" choice AND perpetuating a "system" that will never let the ordinary guy make a real choice.

The only answer is to break the system. Which is why Trump won. Not because he was good, but because he operated outside the system.

It's one reason why I advocate None of the Above. Otherwise it's a sucker's bet, a game of three card monty where you'll never find the red queen.

What's the point of choosing between column A or column B if you're in a bad restaurant?

As CGP Grey explains, "first past the post" voting inevitably gives two parties and elects someone that most people don't want. That's why there is terrible voter turnout. People look at the system and know that there is no way for them to make a change.

Add an ever-expanding adminstrative state, and things get much worse. The administration law system was designed from the very first to let Congress escape responsibility.

Government gets bigger. People get less free.

The system is rigged against YOU.

The only thing left is to break the system.


Environmentalism vs. the Navajo

Time for another lesson in unintended consequences.

The Imperious Leader has is trying to phase out coal. It's supposed to save the environment.

In this case, the goal is to close the Navajo Generating Station, the largest coal power plant west of the Mississippi.

The plant is a major employee on the Navajo reservation.

There are just a few more things to consider.

The Navajo Nation has been screwed out of mineral rights by the United States. On the whole, the U.S. Department of the Interior has been a crimminally bad steward for Native American lands and rights.

The poverty rate in the Navajo Nation exceeds forty percent. Yes, you read that right. 40% poverty rate.

The unemployment rate in the Navajo Nation exceeds fifty percent. Yes, 50% unemployment.

Yes, this is happening in the United States.

Yes, the reason is direct government interference.

Yes, it's going to get much worse.

Why aren't the Democrat politicos making any noise about it?

Why is the political leadership of both parties ignoring it?

Why should we trust the Federal Government to fix it?

The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind. And as the Diné can tell you from long experience, that is exactly what promises from the Federal government are worth,


Local power

This is the problem with companies that aren't local. By nature large companies shift power and responsibility away from local operations for efficiency. Without drastic measures, no one that the customer sees is likely to control anything. This is why the local chain store manager can't control the store inventory or make special orders. This is why local charities are better off going to the corporate office for donations even if there is a plant just down the street. And this is why no one locally can solve any customer problem.


NeoNotes™ On Reciprocity

Pardon, but that’s not necessarily true. Aside from the obvious “Might makes right,” it’s also possible to build a moral system based on the Ethic of Reciprocity.


I'd argue that in peacetime, there are very few times that reciprocity doesn't apply, at least in the long term. You want to screw with the people around you, they will remember and be less likely to deal with you in the future. (There was a great Bill Whittle essay on this that I used to point people at, but it's not online anymore).

What is the origin of those rules?

That is a great question. The practical part of me would ask does it matter as long as the rules work?


Not just Christianity.

In our opinion, the greatest failure of many organized religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers like themselves. It is our group's belief that religions should stress that their members also use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, other genders, other cultures, other sexual orientations, other gender identities, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Crimes against humanity require that the victims first be viewed as subhuman and the as not worthy of life. If the Ethic of Reciprocity is applied to all humans, then no person or group of persons can be seen in this way.


The whole point of that quote was that many organized religions use an ethic of reciprocity but do not extend their definition of people to members of other religions. In other words, the "elect" have privileges (and implied Wisdom™) that "mere unbelievers" do not.

Reread the quote.

We have one race and that's human. If it's really about reciprocity, we're obligated to recognize the worth of others.


And if someone doesn't believe in your eternal judge, don't you face the exact same questions?

It's not my place to say if your God exists or if He may judge you or indeed if He cares what color shirt you will wear next Saturday. That's between you and Him.

Likewise, it's not your place to say the same thing about my gods.

Which means the only things we have to build a society and culture on are the things we have in common. If that's not going to be a shared belief in a specific aspect of Divinity, what's left?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or my preferred version "Be excellent to each other. And party on, Dudes!"


I'm asking about how, absent a transcendent signifier, anything means anything.

I can't answer that for you. I don't believe anyone can answer that for another person.

If you believe, there's no doubt that will shape your thoughts and actions. If you believe in a different Divine aspect, that will shape your thoughts and actions differently. If you don't believe, your actions will still be shaped by belief.

It's a question of faith. We may not share faith. Does that mean we can't share a culture or a society?


I was updating one of my blogs and I ran across an entry from this site that I made. I thought it was good so I quoted it on my site a few weeks back. The line also applies here.

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.


I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.


One may also choose to honor it, cherish it, and nourish it.

It's a matter of choice.

So tell me, is morality stronger when one chooses it? Or is it stronger when one holds a gun to another's head and says "Do as I say or else!!!"

Isn't morality really about making a choice?

If it's made under duress, doesn't it cease to be moral?

If morality is really a choice, then people will make choices you do not like. The next question is what do you intend to do about them?


I'm not an atheist.

Again, if it's a choice made under duress, is it really moral?

If morality can only exist by force, what's the point?


I can see your point, if the rules are transcendent, then they are universal.

But if that guy over there doesn't believe the rules are transcendent, then for him they won't be. That's true regardless.

And then you get into the arguments over which particular Deity wrote the rules and what the "civilized people" are going to do with those folks who do not believe.

That's an incredibly dangerous path to take.


One thing I've learned is that when it comes to enforcing morality, it's almost never a god that does it. It's people who claim to to speak for the Divine.

Inevitably, that leads to arguments over which god is in charge. Funny how that leads to political power for a certain priesthood.

Religion is not the reason, it's the justification.


I disagree. I think the core of civilization is cooperation, not force. Positive not punishment.

Although I differ from most libertarians when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, I believe that relying on force alone will create disaster.

Is morality transcendent or man-made? That's ultimately unanswerable on anything except a personal level. Practically, it only matters if I can trust you and you can trust me.


A couple of years ago I asked on this site if someone could be a "good" man if they weren't Christian.

I don't think force is a foundation of civilization.

What do I base trust on? Past behavior if I have a history with you. The chance to make things a little better today if I don't.

It's an act of faith. *grins*

You know, we’ve had this discussion before. Somehow, I don’t think either of us has changed our views since then.


Hah! I found it. I misremembered what I wrote. Perhaps the question bears repeating here.

Is the only source of accepted morality Christian?


I'm talking about honoring, cherishing and nourishing a moral philosophy. There's not much subjective about it.

If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't kill others.

If I don't want to be hurt, I should not hurt others.

If I want nice stuff, I shouldn't take or damage other people's stuff.

The best way I can protect myself is to stand up for others when I can.

This isn't because of some priest hiding behind a sacred text. This is because I live in the World with other people.


I agree with you.

My grandfather's funeral taught me that the measure of a man was how he touched the lives of others.

As a person of faith myself, I believe in the Divine and I do devotions. I believe that reaching beyond ourselves is how we become better and make our world better. It's the Manifestation.

I just don't think that's the only choice.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Environmentalism loses it's wind

The environmental movement is more than climate change. The climate change movement is destroying the environmental movement.


On Earth Day

This was originally published at Technopagan Yearnings last year.


NeoNotes™ On Undermine your own

Perhaps what frustrates you most is that you can't denounce my faith without undermining your own. At the end of the day, we don't have anything but our faith. Mine is just as valid as yours by every "objective" measure you trot out.

Live and let live. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

The most important person you've never heard of

He's one of those people you should have read about in school. Agricultural scientist, humanitarian, father of the Green Revolution, his work probably fed more people than any other human in history. Despite the good his work has done, to the end of his life he was roundly criticized. It didn't stop him.


"For thee, not for me…or my friends"

It's been obvious from BEFORE the law that Obamacare would have to be "tinkered" with again and again. Usually for no reason except political expediency.


DOJ delays Apple case

I think the FBI was fighting a PR war and it blew up in their face.


Thirteen thousand

So here's a simple question.


Rebellion rumbles

There's only one question left.

If government doesn't trust you, why should you trust government?


Religion becoming the law of the land

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

One paragraph

People aren't labels and they certainly aren't defined by labels.


NeoNotes™ On Political committment

I make it a rule to doubt the political commitment of anyone more than three years younger than the voting age.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

NeoNotes™ On Politics is never about reform

Politics is not about reform.

Politics is about control.

Politics is never about reform, even when the politicos say that is is.

By definition, reform can't come from within. It almost always splits off into a new thing.

At this point, I don't think anyone can stop the collapse. Nor do I think that's bad. There are how many laws on the books? How many regulations in the Federal Register? We've been conditioned to depend on government to help us. Cut spending, but not national defense. Cut spending, but not aid to Israel or Saudi Arabia. Cut spending, but not Social Security. And some banks and unions are Too Big To Fail.

We've been taught that government is supposed to govern and control the other guy.

That's the guy who is the problem.

Not us. Never us, It's not our fault.

As long as the "system" perpetuates that, it should fail. Some of the rot goes back to Reconstruction. As long as people believe that things can be fixed so their lives won't be upended

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


In summary, the older journalists are being laid off and they aren't entitled to run their crusades For Your Own Good under the pretense of being fair and impartial.



Technically this isn't news about this site.


John Oliver speaks on encryption

This is too good to skip.


The FBI demands you sacrifice privacy

Please notice that he didn't talk about rights.


The FBI wants your iPhone

We're at the point where the FBI and the DoJ don't believe the U.S. Constitution applies to their actions anymore.


Climate Pre-Crime

Just remember, it's not illegal to deny climate change. That takes an act of Congress and a Presidential signature.


NeoNotes™ On Political fringe and crazy ideas

Ah yes, the political fringe and their crazy, insane ideas.

Only problem is, there is more than one.

We could use the recent DOD and U.S. Air Force training materials that call conservative groups extremist. One of the danger signs is supposed to be focusing on individual rights.

How about those bankers in the 1990s who loudly said that housing loans to people who couldn't afford to pay wasn't a good idea?

We could talk about those folks in the 1960s who thought that skin color and religion shouldn't prevent equal rights.

How about those ladies back in the late 19th century who had this radical idea that women should be allowed to vote?

I know! We could talk about all those "racists" who dare criticize any policy that our dear Imperious Leader suggests. After all, he works so hard.

It's a dangerous game, labeling what you don't agree with as lunatic.

Lest we forget, we have Bush the Younger (or Bush League as I call him) to thank for botched nation "rebuilding" and this latest "too big to fail." Nixon was responsible for the first "too big to fail," you may remember. The conservative label has no virtue, it takes people.

The "fringe" has also given us the personal computer, the car, and some talented bands that started in a garage.

Crazy ideas aren't always bad…

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Immigration

Years ago, I was part of a small libertarian group that took a very preliminary look at American immigration policy.

Without a drastic change in the leadership of both the US and Mexico, the most viable solution we could come up with was to annex Mexico. That was still a big longshot.

Since that wasn't exactly a libertarian solution, we agreed to disband.

The accepted capital "L" Libertarian solution is to end the War On Drugs, destroying the cartels and changing Mexico's economy.

I do not think that alone would be enough. Anything we do to change immigration policy has to deal with all the illegals here already. Short of armed troops throwing them back across the border, we're not going to get rid of them. I don't like the idea of amnesty either.


E-Verify, like the income tax before it, coerces employers into becoming unpaid spies for the Feds. I can't support that.

Like many libertarians, I think all government welfare benefits should be abolished. In this case, welfare is a poorly disguised vote buying scam.

I also don't support giving Federal funds to cities. Detroit just went broke, there are dozens of other cities teetering. Should their mismanagement be rewarded? Jerry Brown just invited millions of illegals to California, he's counting on Federal money to bail them out.

And don't get me started on public education.

I don't think the answer is more law. I think it starts with repealing the laws that got us into this mess.


It's makes each employer responsible for investigating each prospective new hire and reporting that to the "proper" authorities.

That has nothing to do with the job and everything to do with law enforcement. In other words, a snitch. Or, more politely, a spy.

What's more, employers have no choice.


Okay, let's deal with the armed troops thing.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a nation where the armed forces conduct door to door searches. Today it may be illegal aliens. Tommorrow it may be two liter soda bottles. Or incandescent light bulbs. Or religious publications.

Most illegals aren't violent. Yes, they are criminals, but we don't treat jaywalkers the same as bank robbers.

The military should not be involved in law enforcement. For a long time that was illegal. Then we started "bending" the rules for the drug war and then we repealed the law.


I did say that ending the war on drugs wouldn't be enough, but I do think it is a good first step.

Pardon me if I don't think your plan is a good one. I rate napalm raids right up there with Canada launching an airstirke on south central L.A. It's an act of war that begs for retaliation. Killing anyone without due process for crime is murder.

ETA: It should be "Killing anyone without due process or in self defense is murder."


I agree that shutting down the welfare state would be a Good Thing™, and not just because of illegal immigration.

If I choose to help somebody, that is charity. If an Authority Figure does it with my money and backed with the force of law, that's extortion.

There is also the small matter of if cities and states are getting lots of Federal monies, those Authority Figures are less likely to dissent.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Smear

Pardon, but why should they feel shame?

Are they not freely consenting adults?

It doesn't look like they are cheating on spouses or significant others. It doesn't look like someone is using theft or fraud.

It's not really all that different from what's been going on for ages.


You're stretching the definition of prostitution.

What next? Will you forbid single teachers from dating?

Do you want ankle monitors so you can make sure they don't stray?

Shall we restrict them to dorms so we can watch them even closer?

Maybe the dorms should have nice strong steel doors and bars on the windows…


So it's okay for the woman to sleep with who she is dating, just not if she accepts payment?

So much for a dinner date.


But how many of the couples from have someone leaving a c-note on the nightstand?

On the other hand, there are plenty of "virtuous and moral" people who do exactly that.

If you really want to tout the virtues of a "public indoctrination system" I won't stop you.

It doesn't have much to do with freedom or liberty though.


"Virtuous and moral" were your terms, not mine. The first thing that popped into my head when I read that was that old footage of Jimmy Swaggert proclaiming "I have sinned against you…"

Oddly enough, the most moral people I know of don't have to brag about it.

You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution. The DOI was intended to show the moral case for revolution, while the Constitution is supposed to be the basis of government.

Neither mentions anything remotely close to a "public indoctrination system." That pretty much HAS to come from a "government lackey" or "central committee." It still has nothing to do with freedom or liberty.


You really like that smear word, don't you?

It's open ended, so you can use it to quash debate whenever you want.

Except you can't.

How are these people perverted again?


Smear words are used to quash dissent. It works, unless someone questions it.

I meant the people in the original article. You know, the ones you called perverted, and then tried to link to sexual practices that you find even more repugnant.

Just so no one would question your original allegation.


Nope, that isn't what I said.

Look again. What I said is that if they have sex after a dinner date, that's prostitution by this definition.


Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?

Personally I think it's immoral to convict an individual when they haven't committed a crime because of how you disapprove of their off-time.

"For the children" justifies some immoral behavior.

If you can't show that all teachers molest their students, or that all schools have conspired to hide that from parents, then maybe you shouldn't make blanket accusations.

That's self-control.


I didn't say "blanket statement," I said blanket accusations.

You've gone from consenting adults to molesting kids.

More directly, I haven't said anything about changing the law.

What I have said is what people do in their off time is nobody else's business. I did throw in some obvious bits: consenting adults, no cheating on significant others, no theft, no fraud.

If this is you taunting, you need some practice.

Would you like some pointers?


Of course sexuality and relationships are important. I never said they weren't.

Again, I stressed:

• Consenting adults

• No cheating on significant others

• No theft

• No fraud

Those are pretty good rules no matter how a relationship starts.

The people using the service were just a lot more upfront than most folks these days.


Of course sexuality and relationships between consenting adults ARE NOT society's business.

Do you get a list of officially sanctioned positions and techniques from the Federal government?

Do you get a list of eligible candidates from your city elders?

Do you file for permission from your state before intercourse?


Please stop trying to put words in my posts that aren't there.

I never said lack of harm. I've also never said that people should escape responsibility for their actions.

Guess what. That's any activity, not just sex. Freedom to choose means responsibility for the results.

And in case you haven't noticed, I abhor the word "pervert." I've seen it destroy innocent lives way too often.

I don't believe you should police people's sex lives. I don't think you should police people's lives, period. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be accountable for what they do, I just think the costs of tyranny far outweigh the illusion of safety.


Well, I'll give you this much, you're persistent.

Look again at the original article that began this thread. It was about people selecting companions and partners in an unorthodox way.

Not illegal, but unusual.

There was nothing except comments from readers like you to link that to pedophilia or homosexuality.

To me, it's immoral and perverse that you've taken it on yourself to pass judgement when there is nothing to show that these people did the things you say that you oppose.

Would you accept them passing judgement on you?

Obviously not, from your response to me. And all I've done is defend their right to make their own choices.


You don't know the relationships are harmful. That's another pretty vague word.

If "dysfunctional" and "parasitic" are your standards, you'll have to tell a lot of Americans they aren't allowed to have relationships anymore. Ah, look at all the lonely people…

And now I'm a "pervert," even though you know next to nothing about me. Are you sure you don't want to take another look at that working definition?

I think that people are accountable to themselves and those whose lives they share.


It's not a valid premise.

It's like asking me what food is kosher to me when I am not Jewish.

I abhor the word. I've seen it abused to many times. I prefer not to use it.

How many times can I say the same thing?


No, I have pointed out that you keep using and changing your definition of a slur word. You still haven't shown how the people in the original article have done anything except use an unusual method to pick a bed partner.

For that you've condemned them.

The really sad thing is that you don't see anything wrong with that.


And there is that smear word again.


For many readers of this site, the working definition seems to be "whatever goes against my stated morality when it is convenient."

This week it's me. In an earlier decade it might have been Italian or Irish immigrants. Or the music of Elvis Presley. Or the writings of Walt Whitman. Or the notion that all men (and women) are created equal.



Except you keep proving my working definition for me.

See, you can tell me what you think the definition is.

Or I could watch and see how you use it. That's why I said working definition.

Please prove me wrong.


I said in an earlier decade, it might have been Italian or Irish immigrants. Or the music of Presley, the writings of Whitman, or the notion that all men are created equal.

I added women in parentheses because I thought the statement should be qualified here.

My point is that every one of those things was considered perverted. You don't even want to know what was written about Irish and Italian immigrants, some of it actually makes the Westboro Baptist Church seem classy.


No, what I did was show what was "perverted" is not necessarily what is "perverted" today.


I've shown that your slur word is just that, a slur word whose meaning changes with time and is routinely applied to anyone you might not agree with.

Frankly, I try not to use that word. Unless there is harm other than some ever-changing moral standard, it's not my business to know what my neighbor does in his house, anymore than it's his business what I think of sushi and motorcycles.


Except your definition keeps expanding.

You don't know the people who the article describes, yet you link them to homosexuals and pedophiles. And then you called me perverted.

I certainly disagree with you, but you would be hard pressed to show anything else.


I'm defending the right of people to make their own choices without society policing them for the "greater good."

If you take a harder look, you'll see that what the women in the article have done isn't all that far removed from what some ladies have done for centuries. It's part of civilization.

It also isn't all that different from what goes on in American society today. The only reason that the article was written was because some of the women were public school teachers.

Which means that you think people should have fewer rights if they have certain jobs.

You should think really hard about that.


Small "l" libertarian, well, yep, that's me. As far as it goes anyway.

Funny though how no one else has pointed out the obvious. If it were any profession besides teaching, there would be no story.

It's nobody else's business what someone does in their off time. You wouldn't stand for it if someone was talking about controlling your behavior "for the children."

That's today's quick definition of liberty, folks. It's not a right unless the other guy has it too.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Taking over the world


That's the point. People can and should make their own choices.

The only point in taking over the world is to make sure that people do make their own choices.


The same could be said of almost any group.

But I'll stick to speaking for myself.

What gives another man authority to rule your choices? His degrees? That he's elected? That he's "smarter" than you? That he can juggle numbers better than an Atlantic City accountant?

What makes you more qualified to decide for your neighbor than he is? Would he agree with you? Or would he want to rule over you?


Fair enough.

It seems to me that you think humans need to be governed. Is this your thinking? Might I ask why?


Well I think that a bottom up approach beats a top down one. But that's probably my bias showing. After all, I am a part time trouble maker and a lowercase "L" libertarian.

Still, if you think humans need to be governed, who do you trust to rule? Would the guy three streets over trust the same people? Would the gal down the block trust the same people?


I just don't agree that the default setting should be "government."

I also think that having government turns problems into Somebody Else's Problem (an idea I stole from the late Douglas Adams). You don't notice it because it's Somebody Else's Problem, even though you and your neighbors could fix it easily without technocrats and politicos telling you what is "right" and "wrong."


I don't want to leave it there. I'm stretched a bit thin right now.

There are assumptions that libertarians make that others do not. Chief among these is the free market. Not the corporatized government-sanitized-for-your-protection thing, but the actual free market. Choosing to make (or not to make) transactions between consenting adults.

Then there's KYFHO, which I consider a major cornerstone. I wrote the FAQ on it. Literally. Check out your favorite search engine. With just KYFHO I'm one of the top five entires. With KYFHO and FAQ, I'm the top choice.


I think you're wrong there.

Libertarianism presumes that people can mostly work out their differences for themselves.

Yep, I'd have to agree that libertarianism is anti-nation.

It is very pro-freedom though. And very individualist.

A nation has no virtues or vices except what it's citizens choose.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ - About the guilt

First, not all feminists. And not all lesbians.

Now with that out of the way, these particular females (I will not dignify them as ladies) do have a big problem.

It's all about the guilt. If the guys don't feel guilt, there is no way these females will get their way. I for one am tired of it. I've been lectured to about the need for keeping silent when the RadFems are speaking. I've been lectured for pointing out that environmentalism makes no sense while ecology does. I've been lectured for saying #AllLivesMatter. And I have been lectured to when I refused to change my lifestyle because it is not acceptable to feminism.


I make the same stand against them that I make against some of the conservative Christians. My life is my own. My choices are my own. My responsibility is my own,


Unfortunately, that's not enough for some conservative Christians.

They want to meddle. For the greater good, of course.

And that means taking lives and responsibility away from other people.


If you bother to read my comments, you'll find I don't try to hide what I am saying. After all, I am a pagan libertarian posting openly on a conservative mostly Christian board.

If you had asked me about the "culture wars," I'd tell you that war is the wrong way to think about it. War is backed by force. If you can't convince someone that your way is right without resorting to force, you're doing it wrong.

What you believe isn't important to me. Your freedom to choose what to believe, that is vital. That is what I will defend.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Liberty - the ORIGINAL NeoNotes™

…restricted groups…

Curious choice of phrasing there.

Okay, here's the NeoNotes™ version. In three parts.


Part the First — Labels don't define people, labels describe people. Just because one Democrat orthodontist Mets fan beats his wife and kids does't mean that all Democrats do. Or all orthodontists do. Or all Mets fans do.

It means one person does.

Until you can show that ALL individuals within a group are equally guilty of all crimes, then you can't link group membership to the crime.


"The word is not the thing." "The map is not the territory." The person is not the label.

Not all cancer victims smoke. Not all people wearing pants commit armed robbery. Not all American males like football.

You do not control people by slapping a on a label.


Part the Second — No matter how much you disapprove of someone's behavior and personal life, if it's not against the law it's none of your business.

Remember that last bit.

It's none of your business.

Make it your business for whatever reason, and you open yourself up to people poking in yours.


Depends on the behavior.

Molesting kids, that is against the law and I accept that law as a workable compromise.

Laws against what consenting adults do, well, that is bad law. I don't care if it's a home brewery, scrapbooking, or sex, it's none of your business.

See Part the Third.

The law has no virtue because it is law.


Part the Third — There are limited times ANYTHING should be against the law.

If it doesn't threaten another's person or property, then it probably shouldn't be a law.

Just because your religion says it's not right doesn't mean it should be illegal. Unless you want to be controlled by another's religion.

I think we should compromise and at least try to protect children.

Anything else should be hands off.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

This particiual thread inspired the name.


New quotes - updated

So what is it with all these new Quotes & Thinkums entries?

Some of the comments I make on other boards are worth saving. So I'm putting them here.

ETA: I've given those entries their own catagory, NeoNotes.

That's it.

NeoNotes™ On Divine intervention

Your issue with me isn't about what I say. It's that I don't recognize Christianity as the "obviously superior" choice. It's that I won't give Christianity the hand up you think it deserves. It's that I don't think Christianity is the "universal" choice.

Am I attacking you? No. Am I attacking Christianity? No. Am I suppressing Christianity? No.

If Christianity is what you believe, then it should be able to hold it's own AND MORE against any other set of ideas with no special advantage.

Which means there’s no need to explain human behavior because of Divine intervention or devilish activity.

It’s choice.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ - Ordinary

Most of the ordinary are already great.

Even their day to day actions produce wonders.

That orange juice in your fridge and in fridges all over the country? Absolutely wonderful and put there by everyday people doing everyday things.

That smartphone you use? We were barely reaching for it twenty-five years ago. Made possible by ordinary people wanting things just a bit better than they were yesterday.

That food bank downtown? It's only there because some folks decided to make things a little easier for their neighbors.

All great things. All wondrous things. All made possible by ordinary people.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ - American Legacy

We are a nation of individuals, of individual liberty and responsibilities, of individual choice and individual passion. We're the first nation like that in recorded history, it is our legacy.

Our faiths, like Christianity, are a part of that.

Please think about this. You may believe that your God makes the sun rise, but your faith doesn't control my actions. Likewise, my faith doesn't control you.

We have to find common ground outside religion. Otherwise it's a matter of whose religion is "in charge," and that way will destroy liberty.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Progress

Progress never comes from satisfaction.

And I am not talking about progressives.

We adapt, we change, we rise to meet the challenges. Life is a journey, not a destination.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ - Not the pagan community

I'm not speaking for the pagan community. Much of the justification for "establishing" a Greater Pagan Community® is so that certain individuals can get the adoration and deference they believe they deserve.

I believe in ecology but I'm against environmentalism.

I believe individual freedom and personal responsibility works ever so much better than collectivism.

I think that what Christians call the Golden Rule is one of the most important roots of civilization. But I prefer another version, "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"

Now is that enough of a test, or do I have to give the Super Secret Handshake™ too?

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Rape Culture

I'm not familiar with the work, but we've seen these discussions far too often. Take the allegation that the United States is a "rape culture." Or the notion that anyone who says "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" is a racist.

In this specific case, look at the mindsets involved. One wants validation and their demands enshrined in law and regulation. The other wants a better world for them and theirs. Yet both are treated as if the RadFem ideology is dominant.

There are women who consider themselves feminists that think wife and mother is a valid choice and don't want anything to do with the RadFems. But these are not the ladies doing it for attention. They won't be published. They won't be picketing. They won't be giving soundbites for the news or YouTube. That's not how they believe lasting change happens.

Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don't.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


NeoNotes™ On Christian theocracy

>Anytime someone starts talking about a Christian theocracy, I ask "Which one?"

Besides the obvious differences between Catholics and Protestants, there are differences between the sects. There's no way a Baptist is going to take religious marching orders from a Mormon. The Methodists won't accept directions from the Christian Scientists.

This predates the country. Back in the colonial days, no one wanted a church in one colony dictating religious practices in another. This is partially why there was no national church defined in the Constitution and why the only mention of any god in that document was the date.

The best way to make sure that you're allowed to practice your religion in peace is to make sure EVERYONE has that same right.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.