Iconoclast

That's a nickname I received from a friend when I was 18 years old. I really respected this guy so when he said that to me, not knowing what the word meant, my only reaction was a slight tilt of the head much like a confused dog.

Of course I bolted headlong to the closest library (no google in those days) and looked it up. I like to keep things simple so the break down of the word iconoclast is nothing more than "breaker/destroyer of icons". Hmmm . . .. Interesting, I had never thought of myself on those terms before. When you are a child iconoclast you're really nothing more than a nightmare who would rather argue with his parents than obey them. Spend enough years having the fruitless power struggles with your parents and you learn that the best tactic is to "drop of the grid" so to speak. If they don't know what I am thinking or doing then there will be no confrontation unless I make a misstep and stumble into their focus.

Now I sit here almost 50 and have realized that my life is no different now than it was when I was a 14 year old burgeoning iconoclast. I mean, I have lot more experience at staying out of the limelight but I also have a LOT more parents to avoid. When you are an adult iconoclast, your parents are society itself.

Why have I never even considered dropping the iconoclast bit and just conforming to society? A truly pragmatic person would have given in decades ago. I just can't. I don't want to "obey" anyone. I also don't want anyone to obey me. I resent the idea that one human should have that kind of power over another. I resented it as a child too, but with children a certain power structure is necessary.

The other day I did a rant about DUI laws and the laws that make us safer. I have always detested these kinds of laws because the intent is to coerce your decisions into a certain shape even when those decisions have no direct impact on anyone but yourself. These are called "victimless" crimes. Even drunk driving is a victimless crime unless/until you threaten or harm someone else. When your choice to drink and drive results in a literal crime, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, what have you, your DUI charge is secondary because now you have committed an actual crime.

So what's the difference between crimes and victimless crimes? Well obviously in the case of an actual crime there is a victim. Furthermore there is rarely any doubt in your mind that you are risking your freedom when you commit an actual crime. It's obvious. But with victimless crimes it's not so obvious. Murder, rape, robbery, extortion, these are all obvious crimes and I know if I choose to commit one of these acts that I am breaking the rules and should be punished.

As an iconoclast, a destroyer of icons, I cannot simply conform to a set of rules that don't make sense. I have a hard enough time with rules that do make sense. But, no faster than a gay man could force himself to be straight as a practical decision to be more successful and accepted into society, can I just fold like a house of cards and allow myself to be ruled.
When an otherwise law abiding citizen is confronted with a criminal dimension of a choice he has made and the criminal aspect is surprising to him, that is when the alarm bells should start going off. "Why am I losing my freedom or actual life (if I resist) for doing something that doesn't not injure or damage another?" Well the answer is, because you are being disobedient. When society decides to vilify some activity that the great collective has deemed not in keeping with their vision of who you should be, that is when society has become your parent all over again.

Like I said in my other video, if we don't want people to drive drunk, then why are we allowing them to buy cars that can be driven drunk? If we don't want them to speed why aren't we using technology to create a system that either eliminates the danger of speeding or prohibits the cars themselves from speeding?

When we, as a society, confront logistical issues that can be completely solved with technology, why do we always choose to put the "children" in the corner instead? We want to punish you for being disobedient, that's why. "They" want to punish your behavior to discourage you from doing it again and to remind you who is the boss.

Well I am boss. ME. And I will NOT obey you just for the sake of keeping your hands from around my throat. I will not be managed by fear and intimidation, and no one else should either. I know what's right and wrong and in the highly unlikely event that I choose to commit an actual crime, make no mistake, I made the choice consciously and am willing to face the consequences.

Aristotle once said, "He who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a beast or a god." Well, I don't know which one of those definitions fit me better, but I sure wish I could find more like me. Wouldn't that be something? A society of self sufficient beasts and gods free from the shadows of our parents at last.

We are no longer children and the fact we allow others to treat us that way, and jump at the opportunity to parent others, is, in my opinion, a symbol of our immaturity as a culture. Whenever anarchists or libertarians argue for a less powerful state or the elimination of the state all together, what comes out of your mouth is how utopian and unrealistic those ideas are. That's what comes out of your mouth but what you're really saying is "YOU WILL OBEY ME BECAUSE I SAID SO AND YOU HAVE TO RESPECT MY AUTHORITY".

Smoking, the facts.

I would never argue that smoking is not distasteful ... Ok .. even disgusting to non-smokers. The ground swell of popular opinion to demonize smoking is justified, in so much as smoking has been demonstrated to pose significant health risks to smokers. These facts aren't in question. The question is should this distaste for cigarette smoking be translated to laws against it? Should non-smokers be given a legal redress to limit, or eliminate smoking all together and segregate and punish those who insist on continuing to smoke? There is only one standard which can answer this question in a supposedly free society. Does enviromental tobacco smoke, or second hand smoke, expose non-smokers to health risks they would not otherwise be exposed to?

The immediate answer is, of course, ABSOLUTELY! I mean it's obvious, right? How can breathing smoke be good for you? Unfortunately the question is not whether breathing second hand smoke is good for you, the question is whether or not breathing second hand smoke is demonstrably BAD for you. Listening to loud music is arguably not good for you, but except where the music is considered to be disturbing the peace, loud music is not illegal. Nor should it be. Drinking alcohol is clearly not good for you. Encouraging people to drink is tantamount to encouraging them to flirt with a dangerous addiction. Once again, it's not only legal to drink, it's legal to advertise it.

The smoking issue turns on one question, is second hand smoke dangerous to non-smokers? The first study which claimed that ETS (enviromental tobacco smoke, or second hand smoke) was a clear danger to the public was released by the EPA in 1992. This is literally the basis upon which the entire campaign against second hand smoke was started. There are several relevant facts about this study which should be scrutinized. First, the study was a "meta-study" which means it was not a study per se, but analysis of other studies which purported to support conclusions. Also, it's interesting to note that the EPA released the results before the study had even been completed.

More. The EPA study states that the data showed that nicotine measurements showed that non-smokers blood contained the equivalent nicotine level of one fifth of a cigarette per day. A later study using actual test subjects with nicotine monitors later adjusted the actual number to the equivalent of six cigarettes per YEAR. In 1995 the Congressional Research Service released a review of the EPA report in which it observed, "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." Concluding that the results of the report should be considered suspect. The EPA report stated that second hand smoke was a class A carcinogen and further claimed that second smoke was responsible for 3000 deaths per year. When later asked to support the 3000 deaths claims with data, the EPA simply adjusted the statistical margin of error in the results to accomodate a possibility that the death data might be correct. There was no data available which actually supported the claim. In fact, as of this writing, there have no ZERO deaths anywhere on earth that have EVER been sourced directly to second hand smoke. There are many more examples that show that the study was, in fact, junk science but I won't burden you with them here. I wonder, given the timing of the study, if it was possibly influenced by the multi-billion dollar lawsuits making their way through the courts in those days. When a plaintiff suing a huge tobacco company was allowed to present an actual EPA study in support of it's claims, I assume that could have had a significant impact on the mindset of the jury. But that's just speculation.

So what do we know? Well, after the EPA study the World Health Organization conducted a study of it's own. This was an actual study which was conducted in seven european countries over a period of seven years. It included over 2100 actual test subjects including non-smoking members who lived within families that smoke. Some highlights of the WHO study:

- The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

- The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

- The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

-But-

• Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

*This last fact is routinely ignored by anti-smoking activists.*

Once again I could continue to cite chapter and verse about the conflicts between the EPA study and the WHO study.

The fact is that irrefutable empirical data does not exist that proves that second hand smoke is an actual danger to anyone. Like it or not, those are the facts. Anti-smoking activists are desperate to come up with something but to what purpose? The dangers of smoking are real to the smokers and the notion that smokers should still exist in society is offensive.

There no logical basis for prohibiting offensive behavior. In fact the first amendment guarantees us the right to offend each other. Why else would the guarantee exist? To make sure that socially acceptable versions of speech and thought were protected?

I get that you find smoking offensive. I get that you find addiction repulsive. I understand that you don't want your precious children exposed to examples of human weakness and frailty. What YOU don't get is that I have every right to offend you and you have every right to leave my presence when you take issue with me. I don't not have the right to assault you. Since there is no evidence that my offensive habit poses an actual health risk to you .. you can't claim that I am assaulting you by smoking.

If you take your irrational mania to the next logical step you will ultimately create another non-winnable war. Just like alcohol and drugs. You cannot ever successfully prohibit personal choices that don't damage you directly. Suck it up and learn tolerance.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?

I have been fair, at least I've tried to be. I have read the anti-Ron Paul diatribes. The derisive, condescending remarks reminding us all that the man is a kook and a nut and doesn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of winning. What I haven't seen though is a calm, reasoned analysis of his platform positions and why he is wrong.

On foreign policy he advocates bringing the troops home and ending the American Empire. Many might disagree with this philosophy and cite threats of terrorism, the axis of evil and what a dangerous world this is and that we must be on guard to fend off the barbarian hordes. The actual truth of the matter is that there is no force, nor even a combination of forces, on this planet that poses a grave threat to the military machine on which we invest more than the next ten countries COMBINED. So who benefits from our foreign policy of meddling in the affairs of so many other nations? Someone must be winning or the investment wouldn't be made. I will let you ponder that on your own, and would love to see a factual argument that would prove that "main street" somehow benefits from the trillions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of dead and wounded we have been spending overseas.

On the domestic side he wants to cut $1 trillion from the budget his first year. He's gone so far as to present a detailed budget proving how he would accomplish it. While I am sure this idea strikes terror in the hearts of the socially conscious ... have you taken the time to actually read his plan? Have you observed the great care he has taken to slowly reduce departments and social programs most often waiting for natural attrition rather than radical cuts? Have you listened as he's explained that the lions share of the savings would come from reductions in military and foreign aid budgets? Most importantly, do you really think that we can continue to accumulate debt at the current rate indefinitely without crashing into a brick wall of insolvency and monetary suicide?

The Federal Reserve. Well this is a stick with which the mainstream media has beaten him with relentlessly. Nobel laureates (Paul Krugman) as well as commentators and financial gurus yammer on about how important the FED is to the working of our economy and how ending it would be economic suicide. They have scoffed at the title of his book (End the Fed) apparently without ever actually reading it. If they had they would have learned that no where in that book has he called for the "End of the FED". They talk about his archaic notions of returning to the gold standard and foretold of the calamity of hyper-deflation if we returned to it. Again, if they read what he wrote they would know that he never actually calls for a return to the gold standard. What the man has proposed in regards to the FED and the monetary system is two things. First .. a complete audit of the FED and Fort Knox. If the masters of the universe have nothing to hide in reference to the financial system and the financial condition of this country, why is a closer look at the books such a bad thing? As far as the currency, he has never advocated for an actual return to the gold standard. He makes the reasonable request to end the FED monopoly on the currency and to allow everyone to choose whatever currency they feel most comfortable with. To accomplish this he lobbies for an end to all sales and capital gains taxes on gold and silver. That way anyone who chose to keep their money in those commodities would not be unfairly punished.

Finally social issues. Gay marriage. Abortion. Drug laws. I am so sick of the media portraying his stances on these issues as radical. To understand what he proposes takes no more than understanding the 10th Amendment to the constitution. "All powers not delegated to the federal government shall be left to the states and to the people." He would never, nor has he ever proposed, support any sweeping federal mandate about how to handle these issues. If anything he has said the opposite. These decisions are not within the scope of authority specifically outlined in the constitution and therefore the federal government must stand down and let the states decide for themselves. If your state makes choices you are uncomfortable with, become politically active and help influence opinion or move to another state! That is the vision of the founders of the country. A complex quilt of different cultures and values determined by the people who live there, leaving us all option of finding the best fit for our morals and values. This vision will simply vanish if we continue to allow the federal government to overwhelm the rights of the states.

If you disagree with Ron Paul, think he's a nut, just do yourself and everyone else a favor, explain why. Ad hominem attacks only work on mother-in-laws and talk show hosts.

Our Legacy ....

There was a time when "normal" men and women cheered at the sight of gladiators killing each other for sport. We fancy ourselves a more evolved and "civilized" people yet I wonder. Is it really more civilized to turn a blind eye while innocents are blown to bits in dark corners of the earth with our tacit approval? In ancient times men died for crimes we might call petty today. Would they similarly call the crimes of the dead we leave petty? What are their crimes after all? Being born on ground beneath which hide riches of oil and diamonds and gold? Not favoring the masters that we pay homage to? For what crime is a bloody death just punishment? When you obey your masters, when you pay your taxes, when you extol the virtue of your ideals at the end of a sword, have you carefully weighed the justice of your cause? You have not. You will not. Your mind is so corrupted by the machinations of your masters you cannot even fathom those choices. They are not yours to make because they have already been made for you. March on mindless children. Few among you will take heed to the horror your apathy has left behind you. But your children and their children will face those horrors someday. And their anguish will be laid upon the altar of your willful ignorance.

The Matrix is real

Let me just give you one example. I live in southern California where it's almost inconcievable to be without a car. Most people are completely and utterly dependent on their cars for survival. Having spent 27 years in the car business, most of that time in high level management positions, I thought I could bring my experience to bear in exploring the effects this dependency.

The first thing I considered was the impact on our freedom. Since we live in free country and are allowed to travel freely from state to state without "papers" I thought surely the automobile must be able to take the credit for enhancing our freedom to a large extent. That seems to be the logical assumption, and at first glance I believe that case can be made. Digging deeper, however, I found some troubling aspects that many people don't consider.

It was from a source as unlikely as the "Unabomber",  Ted Kaczynski, that I drew one of my most important observations. He had written, during his days at Berkley if I recall, a treatise about the counter-intuitive impact of automobiles on human society. Rather that offering us more freedom, close analysis revealed many ways where our freedoms had been diminished. In the most basic sense any time a human becomes dependent on something external to survive, obviously your freedom suffers as a consequence. In a more literal sense let me draw the comparison to the most popular form of locomotion before cars, horses. When you owned a horse it was yours. Your own self interest dictated that you should feed and care for your horse, but there were no legal requirements to do so. You didn't have to register them, or insure them, or have them pass emissions tests. You didn't have to have a license to ride them. There were no traffic signals or stop signs telling you how to ride them. When cars began to proliferate most people accepted without hesitation rules regarding their operation. There were speed limits for cars even when horses were still faster than most cars.

Quickly the forces of capitalism, specifically croney or monopoly capitalism, took over. Henry Ford pioneered the assembly line making cars more affordable. Soon the banks and other techno-industrial interests got on the band wagon. A new type of village was constructed called "The Suburbs" which helped promote the dependence on the automobile. Because of that we are now probably 4 generations removed from a time when it was common place for people to walk to work or school, etc.. The power of the automobile/oil lobby can be reasonably accused of attempting to block any investment into mass transit which would offer an alternative to automobiles.

Using the most current statistics, AAA estimates that the average per mile cost of a mid-size car, including fuel, maintenance, insurance, interest expense and depreciation is about $.60 per mile. In California the average driver puts around 18,000 miles per year on their car. That means that the AVERAGE car ... costs the AVERAGE driver about $10,800.00 per year to operate. That's $900.00 per month we pay for locomotion. That's a pretty high price. Add to it the fact that we all have to stand in line and humbly beg our civil servants for permission to drive them and it paints a pretty grim picture. And that doesn't include what I consider one of the most disturbing facts about driving a car, namely that when you sign the agreement to accept your drivers license you are signing away a good portion of the bill of rights in the process. The law enforcement officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws will quickly explain to you that driving is not a "right" but a privilege that can only be exercised with the permission of government.

The part of this realization that probably bothers me the most is that "we" have accepted all of these rules and regulations out of concern for our safety and security unnecessarily. I hate to bring it up again but I must. In the Netherlands there is a town called Drachten that began an experiment in 2003. They took the advice of an engineer and quite literally abolished virtually every law, street sign, traffic signal in the town. The reasoning was that left to their own devices the people would regulate themselves. First out of fear then later out of trust, the citizens of Drachten would realize that they didn't have to be told how to drive. Sure enough, almost ten years later, there have been ZERO actual car accidents. Maybe the occasional fender bender but absolutely ZERO injuries or fatalities. So there is your example. We bought into the control grid because we were told that we must regulate cars for them to be safe. It was not true then, and it's not true now.

Listen I am not here promoting the genius of Ted Kaczynski, though he is, without argument, a brilliant but misguided man. I am just trying to reveal a glimpse of the matrix that we are all part of. The most important aspect of it is the fact that it's subtle. If someone doesn't point it out to you, well, most of you will never see it. You're paying $900.00 per month to drive a car to get where you feel you have to go to live. The car companies, banks, insurance, and oil companies all depend on you to remain dependent on them. It's not an accident the world looks the way it does.

Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons.
R. Buckminster Fuller