Reinke Faces Life

This was a comment by an emailer to FTL (http:/freetalklive.com). I'm not so sure about that. Have to think about it.

The boys at ftl really hit the bulls eye with this interview.

Loretta Nall is Libertarian candidate for Governor of Alabama. She describes how she changed the focus of a whole debate about the War on Drugs. 

I especially like her quip about having the two candidates for Sheriff "by the gonads" in front of a live audience. They reversed their positions on the War on Drugs within minutes of promising to "eradicate" drugs! 

It is a race issue (i.e., more blacks get imprisoned for drugs than rich white boys and girls). It's a class issue (i.e., rich people hire lawyers; poor people take plea bargains). It's a crime issue (i.e., violent criminals fight over turf like in Prohibition Days and drugs are so expensive that addicts commit crimes to get them). It's a fact of life issue (i.e., the rate of drug addiction hasn't changed over eons). It's a freedom issue (i.e., the Fourth Amendment is trampled by the drug warriors). 

And, I could go on and on. Listen to her on the interview clip. Review some of the FACTS about the drug war. And tell me that it isn't a joke! We've lost. What we are doing doesn't work and can't work. So let's try something new. Liberty!

Now I don't want everyone to be a drug addict. But, clearly that doesn't happen. If we put our energies into understanding, rehab, and finding the "cure", then we would be far better off.

If what we are doing doesn't work, then how can doing more of the same work any better. It's like visiting LA or Chicago and trying to use a map of NYC to get around. Even a child would say, that's dumb. Why is this any different? We have a map (i.e., the War on Drugs) that doesn't work. Let's try a new map (i.e. cure versus prohibition).

It didn't work in the Twenties, it doesn't work now! 

A 

http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20060602/0151254

***Begin Quote***

most people seem to ignore such {cell phone} bans anyway 

***End Quote***

Forget the government trying to force people not to use cell phones when driving. (Don't get me started on government.)

How about a simple solution?

Insurance companies shouldn't have to cover the cost of your accident if it's found you're on the phone at the time of the accident, or were on just prior to.

Simple and elegant?

I know that if I got that letter from my insurance company it would make an impression on me.

Think of it: insurance company lawyers would be sure to enforce that provision. They'd be on it far better than any "state revenue collection" agent (aka cop) — after all we know that with gubamint, it's all about revenue from radar traps, rather than safety.

I bet that "simple change" would change behavior.

IMHO

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese284.html

Original Intent
by Charley Reese
***Begin Quote***

They would be disturbed at how we have allowed politicians and judges to turn the Constitution into an excuse instead of a restraint.
***End Quote***

(1) Return the foreign policy to not meddling in the affairs of others. 

(2) Disband the standing army and decommission the myriad of TLAs with guns and "police power".

(3) Return sovereignty to the states.

(4) Return to U.S. senators that are selected by the state legislatures.

(5) Eliminate any federal mandate on the states (i.e., one man one vote).

(6) A party should be Constitutionally limited from a majority in the Congress when the hold the Presidency. (Not sure how to word that one?)

(7) Federal judge could be impeached by the legislature of the state in which he sat.

(8) Federal government, as an agent of the states, can only pass laws about the states not citizens of those states.

(9) No federal involvement in education, welfare, medical care, foreign aid and domestic pork-barrel projects. 

I can live with that! I'm voting Charlie for President. We'll sort out the details later!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/vuk4.html 

Step-by-Step Socialism
by Vedran Vuk
***Begin Quote***

Poverty is whatever the opponents of freedom make it out to be. Have capitalism and semi-free markets not increased the wealth of the poorest in America ten-fold?! The luxuries considered standard to the average U.S. citizen would have been marvels to kings and queens of a hundred and fifty years ago!

If capitalism in another hundred years improves the situation of the poor ten-fold again, the obstructers of liberty will still call it poverty! Not because the lower 20% don’t have enough but because the upper 20% have a hell of a lot more. 
***End Quote***

Very insightful. Like the fellow who said that he wanted to come to America because the poor people were fast. Even he realized the fallacy of the "poverty hustlers".  You know, those are those people, who appear to make their living out of lecturing us, that we are not doing enough about hunger, poverty, and homelessness. 

The bottom fifth is not "poor".

Those souls in the Third World, being starved to death by their respective government, are poor.

Now, I have no doubt, that there are people in America that are "poor". I also know that I see an awful lot of "welfare queens". An, they are not all at the welfare office drawing a gubamint check. We have lots of "welfare" recipients that don't have to endure the indignity of appearing at the welfare office for it. 

Let's start by cutting corporate welfare. Price supports! Here's a pet peeve. We have sugar price supports and sugar quotas. Now let me understand this I have to pay more for sugar and anything that contains it so that corporate farms that are growing it are incentivized to keep growing it. AND, since this cost is unavoidable, it's a tax. So everyone pays a sales tax to keep the sugar flowing. Does that make ANY sense at all? We have milk price minimums at the federal level. Again, it's a tax. Does it make any sense at all?

Let's examine all the wealthy welfare. Just off the top of my head, I can target Federal Flood Insurance that encourages wealthy people to rebuild expensive homes on dangerous coastlines at taxpayers' expense. I can site Sam Donaldson's sheep farm in Arizona that gets millions. And, don't forget the minimum wage that helps the unions and the gubamint workers. (And, you thought it was about helping poor people; silly taxpayer!)

So, in short, the bottom 20% needs a tax cut, a cost of living decrease, and the free market to elevate tehir living standard.

There's a bumper sticker quote to the effect that "no one ever taxed themselves to prosperity". Wow is that true! 

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art43486.asp

Diabetes Site
Cindy Kimura
BellaOnline's Diabetes Editor
Conquer Diabetes Call-In

***Begin Quote***

{Content deleted at the request of the author. You'll have to visit her site to see what she said. I still think what I posted was a fair use quote, but I am an easy to get along with type. In summary she urged that you call the Congress to support R&D funding. I assume that because I differ with her tactically, not strategically, she wants to use "force" one me to silence my pov. Oh well. She'll learn that begging politicians for a pittance is a losing tactic as well as demeaning.}

***End Quote***

Dear Ms. Kimura,

While I am sure that you have the best of intentions, I don't agree that going hat in hand to the Federal Government is the best way to solve the problem. I am not unsympathetic to your quest. I'd like nothing more than to see Diabetes conquered in our lifetimes. My wife is a Type 1 and my best friend is a Type 2.

However, I am fundamentally opposed to using tax money for any such purpose. No matter how noble.

First, if it is a good idea, then funds should be able to be raised voluntarily. My experience is that funds raised that way are used more effectively and efficiently. I personally contribute to the Joslin Institute. Not because of the tax deduction, but because of the pioneering work that they do. I think that they have a real chance at a cure.

Second, the Federal Government is neither effective or nor efficient in what they do. You and I will long be dead and buried before they develop a cure or have any hand in developing one. Allowing them to call the shots is just plain silly. What expertise do they have as leaders in Diabetes Research to decide what the right amount is? How can they decide what is the next best use of the next dollar of diabetes research money? How can they determine diminishing returns? When you say call and urge, how do we know what the right number is? It is egotistical to think that this process will deliver anything but strife as the different special interest groups "battle" for a part of the budget. Isn't it much more efficient, effective, and peaceful, if we return this to the people for a decision? Let's cut the Federal Government out of the equation, and thus we lose their "handling fee" (estimated to be a half to 85 percent), and put that money back into taxpayers' hands. Let's assume the breakage of sending a dollar to Washington is 50% just to make the math simple. So if you had a check from the Federal Government representing your share of the R&D budget let's say it's a dollar, then you could send it to say Joslin. Now, instead of sending two dollars to Washington to get a dollar check to donate, how about if you just keep the two bucks. Then, you can send it to Joslin. The AIDS activists can send their two bucks where they want. The Parkinson advocates can send it where they want. You get the idea. It's effective because the research organization will have to impress you with progress to keep you contributing. It's efficient because the "handling charge" of the Federal Government will go to the charity. And, it's peaceful, because the various groups don't have to squabble among themselves and give the Federal Government the ability to play one off against the other.

Third, if you really want progress, then focus on "shooting" the FDA! It slows the process and makes it fantastically expensive. Eliminate them and the whole R&D pipeline will speed up and cheapen. Besides, do you really think the Drug Companies want to kill their customers? And, even if you do, do you think that the FDA is an effective remedy? If so, look at the Viox and such deaths.

Fourth, I can only think of one disease that was "cured" lately. That was polio. The March of Dimes flattened it. Without the Federal Government. My only gripe with them was that they didn't have the good sense to go out of business. They "adopted" another disease. And one that will have no cure. "Birth defects" probably can't be eliminated or cured, only minimized. But, if they can attract donations, then that's OK! When they get tax money or United Way, which is not voluntary for most people, then it's NOT OK.

So, if I was king, I would suggest to my subjects that I wasn't wise enough to figure out what to do. But, what I did know was that we, as a people, needed to develop a consensus. The logical addition of all our opinions would be better than mine alone. Since I wasn't smart enough to cure any disease, I would help my subjects figure it out what diseases we had and how to move ahead. So, I'd order the king's clerks to summarize the cause of all deaths for all the land. I would invite the king's doctors (a panel of fifty distinguished people selected by their peers serving pro bono) to identify the 50 biggest problems (either by deaths or death rate) and the organizations working on those problems. I'd proclaim the list throughout the land and invite my subjects to contribute to the charity of their choice. I, of course, would visit each organization (one per week) and encourage them to find a cure. If they did, I bestow a meaningless honor on the ones that cured their disease and went out of business. I'd compliment my subjects on their wisdom and remind them that we still had a list of problems. Notice that never once did I make anyone do anything. Or really really spend a lot of tax money.

I hope this little rant convinces you that, if you really really want to cure diabetes, as I think you and I do, that a different strategy will be required. After all, look where the current model has gotten us. Some wag defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results. Depending on the Federal Government, to me, defines insanity.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
FjohnR

Ferdinand John Reinke
3 Tyne Court
Kendall Park, NJ 08824
732-821-5850 (Home Office)
781-723-3746 (Fax)

http://public.2idi.com/=reinkefj (Email form)
http://www.reinke.cc/ (Web page)
https://reinkefj.wordpress.com/ (Blog)

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16691349&BRD=1091&PAG=461&dept_id=425716&rfi=6

EDITOR'S NOTE
By: Hank Kalet, Managing Editor    05/25/2006
Primary decision: Post resists temptation to endorse.

***Begin Quote***

The South Brunswick Post does not endorse in primary elections.

I will admit that there was a temptation to enter the fray this time around, because township Republicans have so far failed to field a candidate for mayor and the June 6 Democratic primary contest between incumbent Mayor Frank Gambatese and former Mayor Debra Johnson could end up determining who will be mayor come January.

But we decided to resist the temptation for three reasons:

1. We believe that primary elections are intraparty affairs that should be determined by the political party in question.

***End Quote***

Added: Thursday June 01, 2006
Why do taxpayer pay for primaries?

> "1. We believe that primary elections are intraparty affairs that should be
> determined by the political party in question."

Then why do I have to pay for them?

If it's truly a private matter for that club, why are tax dollars used for it?

I don't monitor, nor pay for the elections at the vfw, american legion, kawanis, the local churches, the third grade class president at Constable school.

So why do I pay for these clubs to elect candidates?

f reinke, kendall park, nj

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16691777&BRD=1091&PAG=461&dept_id=425723&rfi=6

The South Brunswick Post
EDITORIAL
05/25/2006
Don't base steroid policy solely on test.

***Begin Quote***

The state and the athletic association that oversees high school sports competition want to keep steroids out of high school sports.

They will begin testing athletes who reach state championship games for a variety of performance-enhancing drugs. Under the new state policy, which received unanimous approval from the executive board of the New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Association, 5 percent of championship-level athletes would be tested beginning in the fall. The tests would take place following championship-round games. Athletes found using steroids would be suspended for a year.
 
***End Quote***

Added: Thursday June 01, 2006
End the drug war now!

I can't think of a more intrusive demeaning thing that can be done to young people than the pee in the cup test.

It is a violation of human dignity.

People will always do dumb things. The dumbest is to think that the collective "we" can prevent people from doing what we consider "dumb things". When we allow this nonsense, human beings will demonstrate just how adaptable they are. You watch at the ways to evade, avoid, cheat, and otherwise take this "noble idea" and turn it into a joke. I recently read you can not only buy "clean" urine on the net. But you can also buy an appliance to make it look like its yours to the casual observer.

Where there is a will there is a way!

Keep on coming up with "dumb" ideas and crafty people will figure out a way around it.

End the drug war now! "We" lost.

Like most "wars", aka drugs, poverty, hunger, vietnam, terror, we lose! Stop them now!

f reinke, kendall park, nj

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR460082006

***Begin Quote***

In May 2005 the government of Zimbabwe embarked on Operation Murambatsvina (Restore Order), a programme of mass forced evictions and the demolition of homes and informal businesses. The operation, which was carried out in winter and against a backdrop of severe food shortages, targeted poor urban and peri-urban areas countrywide.
***End Quote***

In the sense of fair play, and "what is good for the goose is good for the gander", I would suggest that the US State Department declare any Zimbabwe diplomats persona non grata. Further we should give them 24 hours to clear out. Then the next day, bulldoze the embassy.

At the very least, all the leadership should be "png" and barred from visiting the US. All bank accounts should be frozen pending litigation from those 700k people who might want to be compensated for their losses.

imho

It takes a gubamint to oppress the people! 

Now I know that this will come as a complete shock to you …

… shocked a la Casablanca … 

… … … I am “shocked”. (Trying to do my best Claude Rains as Captain Renault “I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” in Casablanca imitation.) 

Here are some docs that say:

"Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare Drug Benefits"
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/22/2349  

***Begin Quote***

Conclusions A cap on drug benefits was associated with lower drug consumption and unfavorable clinical outcomes. In patients with chronic disease, the cap was associated with poorer adherence to drug therapy and poorer control of blood pressure, lipid levels, and glucose levels. The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by increases in the costs of hospitalization and emergency department care.
***End Quote***

Translation: Another gubamint program that (cribbing from the Five Iron Laws of Big Government): 1. doesn't work but never end!; 2. makes things worse for the people to be helped; 3. UIC (aka Un Intended Consequences); 4. costly and wasteful and under estimated; 5. diverts money and energy from other positive, productive uses! 

AND, it actually puts the country deeper in debt, marches us further down the road to socialism, and enshrines yet another benefit that can't never be taken back!

Guess we win the negative pick 6!