Minor Parties
Jim May
Minor
parties do not need to win elections. They can have the "big boys"
do their dirty work for them. Every successful minor party has had
its agenda adopted by one of the major parties. This has been the
unfailing rule for every successful minor party. I believe that being
persistent, consistent, and dedicated to their principles is the secret
for their success although having a popular cause is also a plus.
Did
you know that only a handful of the people in the British Colonies of America
were interested in breaking the ties with Great Britain? The government
of the United States of America was thrust upon the majority without their
consent. It was not until the atrocities of the British militia were
committed upon them, their family, or their friends that the majority finally
decided to back the new government.
Did
you know that it was the Socialist Party that originally had the platform
of Social Security, welfare, unemployment insurance, subsidized housing,
and most of the other socialist programs that were instituted by the Democratic
Party? The Socialist Party had the active support of less than one
percent of the population, yet most of its platform was implemented.
If
you really want change, you will break out of the mold of two party politics
and support a third party. It is the only honorable thing to do as
any compromise to your principles is dishonorable. Just like the
man said, if you do things the same way every time and expect a different
result, you must be insane. To me that means voting for either of
the major parties is an act of insanity. No wonder things are progressively
getting worse.
Remember
that voting for the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil!
How Mad is MADD? It's Insane!
Sam Aurelius Milam III
The
results of a recent study by the Centers For Disease Control were described
as "disturbing" and "shocking" in a recent NBC news report.1
In this broadcast, NBC's Robert Hager reported that there are about 1 1/2
million alcohol-related arrests each year in the USA, but a mere 17,000
alcohol-related deaths per year. The "shocking" and "disturbing"
part of the study was the supposedly horrifying revelation that there are
over 123 million undetected incidents per year of drunk driving.
These undetected incidents do not result in deaths, accidents,
or even arrests. Mr. Hager conceded this by describing the number
of undetected incidents of drunk driving as being "a huge number compared
to those arrested or causing an accident".
Nobody seemed to notice the obvious conclusion to be drawn from these observations,
presuming of course that the statistics are accurate.2
Notice that (using the 17,000 figure) there are fewer than .014% as many
alcohol-related deaths as there are drunk drivers. Fewer than 1.2%
of drunk driving incidents even come to the notice of the cops. Therefore,
the study reveals a far different problem than its authors are trying to
claim. When you realize that such a tiny fraction of drunk drivers
actually cause a problem, then the conclusion is that drunk driving isn't
really very likely to cause an accident. For this tiny risk, we've
given up our right to be presumed innocent, our right to refuse to incriminate
ourselves, our right to remain silent, our right to travel, our right to
determine our own level of insurance, and even our right to own a car.
To solve this non-problem, we've allowed the creation an arrogant and repressive
police state staffed by strutting gestapo-style thugs.
I'm
tired of having my liberties trampled at the behest of reformers who want
the government to control everybody but themselves. The members of
MADD are far more dangerous than the drunk drivers they persecute.
At least I can try to dodge the drunk drivers. If these self-righteous
MADD reformers really want to address a serious problem, they should go
to Cambodia or Afghanistan and walk through the mine fields. They
would thereby save the innocent children and farmers who would otherwise
step on the mines and simultaneously reduce the number of arrogant reformers
in the world. (I know the supply is endless, but every little bit
helps.)
|
|
NBC Nighty News With Tom Brokaw, Tuesday, January 7, 1997 |
|
|
The very next day, NBC reported 100,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. (NBC Nighty News..., Wednesday, January 8, 1997) Is this a credibility gap? See Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics — Again, on page 2 of this issue. |
Illiteracy By Example
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I
listened with amusement recently as a panel of scholars discussed the "literacy
problem", by which they meant the inability of students to properly use
the English Language.3
Please note: There is no literacy problem. Literacy isn't a
problem. There's an
illiteracy problem. I doubt that
these "scholars " will be able to teach the proper use of the language
until they learn to use it properly themselves.
|
|
The News Hour With Jim Lehrer, Thursday, January 9, 1997 |
 |
 |
Rousseau's
definition of freedom, as given in the Social Contract, has been
accepted by political philosophers since his time. The anarchists
rejected Rousseau's advocacy of democracy as the means to freedom, but
they pretty much accepted his definition. This goes for major anarchists
of whatever school, from Bakunin to Kropotkin. If contemporary anarchists
would read the classic literature of individual freedom of Rousseau, Bakunin,
Kropotkin, etc, they would have the classic set of definitions of political
terms at their fingertips. Instead, they continue to argue semantics
as they have been doing for decades. It's very ineffectual, &
very American. 
