Frontiersman, August 2007

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, August 2007

Thug Togetherness
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I recently had a conversation with a good friend in which he mentioned an alleged drug decriminalization scheme, presumably in Sweden, that had failed. I don't know if his facts are accurate. I wasn't aware of the scheme and I don't know how it was intended to work. However, I know exactly why such a scheme would fail.
Consider that the anti-drug thugs (DEA etc.) and the drug thugs (Mafia, CIA, etc.) are utterly dependent upon one another. That is, if there weren't any drug thugs selling illegal drugs, then the anti-drug thugs wouldn't be able to justify their jobs. They'd all have to find something that was actually useful to do for a living. At the same time, if there weren’t any anti-drug thugs pretending to enforce the draconian anti-drug legislation, then the drug thugs wouldn't be able to charge the exorbitant prices that they charge for their product. They couldn't make the exorbitant profits that they make. So, neither side of the so-called War on Drugs would be worthy of participation if it weren't for the justification provided by the other side.
Now, consider the alleged scheme in Sweden. If it was actually tried, and failed, then it failed because it was sabotaged. I don't know how the sabotage was accomplished but I know why. If the scheme had succeeded, then people in other countries might have wanted to do the same thing. Something like that might get out of control. Before you know it, you might have people buying the product at K-Mart for 1% of the previous price and 0% of the previous risk. Then, you'd have drug thugs anti-anti- drug thugs out of work all over the world. Consider that those are some of the people who wield the real power in the world and you can see how a little scheme in a tiny country like Sweden would certainly fail. It was sabotaged by the opponents (AKA partners) in the so-called War on Drugs. Indeed, they probably cooperated with one another in the effort.

Letter to the Editor

The following letter is with regard to my article "Future Shock, Present Apathy" on page 1 of the July issue.

— editor

You preach to the choir! Yes, Sci-Fi back in the 50's & 60's was great, but it's here now & a lot worse than Heinlein or Azimov could have described. 1984 ain't got nothing on Columbine, etc & the totally controlled TV & newspapers are mere mentions in Berzerker worlds. The one I really identified with & recall is To Your Scattered Bodies Go, by Phillip Jose Farmer. Boy do we need a revolution!!

— a prisoner

My life's not what's important. What's important is that we need a deeper kind of resistance than anything we've ever thought about. We need to be for somethin', not just against the Russians.

— Devin William Milford
in the miniseries Amerika

Smitten With Embarrassment Department
(Seldom Used)
I recently noticed an error in the article Pyramid Scheme, by Jim Sullivan. It's on line 5 of the right-hand column on page 3 of the May 2007 issue. I received the article typed and scanned it into the computer. The error is a typical OCR error that neither I nor the spelling checker noticed. I used the word modem instead of the word modern.

— editor

Stray Thoughts
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Unlikely — I doubt if you're ever likely to find a complete autobiography.

Culinary Delight — Cold, left-over pizza is one of the finest breakfasts ever invented.

Fundamentalist Reformers Beware — Sex is a family value.

Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
Back issues are available at http://frontiersman.my3website.net/. Also see Pharos at http://pharos.my3website.net.

August 2007

Frontiersman, 1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901

Page 1

Intended Consequences
Jim Sullivan

Many political scientists and not a few U.S. citizens think that political campaign financing for general elections is still the biggest problem facing America today. It surely is, say dismissive politicians, if one discounts the shortage of wooden nickels.

Although contributions per contributor are limited in amount, candidates may raise unlimited amounts in total. Yes, it has to be transparent and reported publicly but who reads such reports? With all of those dollars, it isn't any wonder that campaigns are with us night and day, week in and week out, year after year, ad nauseam. Unlimited funds — what more could a candidate (or a spendthrift spouse, for that matter) want? Why it's downright utopian!

Along side of that problem is the perennial one of officials in office taking time away from their jobs and, instead, raising more money to run against their opponents in the next election. Consequently, the nation's business isn't done in a timely fashion, if it's done at all. Something drastic has to be done to remedy the situation.

Sure, campaign finance reform has been enacted. It's known as the McCain/Feingold Act, after a Republican and a Democratic U.S. Senator, respectively. It limits the amount of soft money that can be donated to various supporting organizations, like political parties. However, it doubles the amount of hard money that individual contributors are allowed to give directly to candidates.

We've now gone through an election cycle and seen how the new, well-intentioned legislation works. Sadly, not too terrific! To be precise, it had at least one unintended consequence. It increased the contributions to and the expenditures of 527 groups, a federal government category for special interest groups which, like the Swift Boat Veterans, spend a lot of money to advertise their own positions. Such ads, and those favoring the other side, wreaked havoc in the presidential campaigns of John F. Kerry and George W. Bush.

McCain/Feingold went further than most pundits thought the Congress would allow. What more, then, could the Congress do? Not much! Certainly some new legislation might eventually be wrangled out of the Congress if its two chambers could ever agree. But would that only create some other unintended consequence that lets money flow into the campaign from an unforeseen place? Probably.

One little-known idea has been floating around in national political circles lately that might just be the answer that Americans have been seeking. It goes like this. First, Congress repeals the McCain/Feingold Act. Next, Congress takes the cap off of direct, hard money campaign contributions, making them unlimited. Anyone or any group — corporations, nonprofit groups, individuals, labor unions, political action committees (PACs), and what have you — could make uncapped contributions. All soft and 527 money donations and activity from any source would be disallowed.

The first thing that would happen is that contributions would soar. But not to worry. The new, unlimited contribution policy would include a brief caveat written, of course, in small print. It would read, "All contributions to any candidate for a particular office must be shared with other candidates for that office." A small percentage, perhaps 10 or 15 percent, of the pooled money could go to minority candidates. That could be based on their party's performance in the most recent past election. Once major candidates are seen sharing all campaign funds received, regardless of the source, the contributors are going to yell, "Hey, wait a minute! Why should I give any more money to my candidate? He has to share it with the opposition and I'm not about to donate to the other side!"

At that point, campaign contributions would start to dry up faster than if someone said, "No tax deductions allowed!" After that, there wouldn't be enough money for any candidate to campaign. They'd be left with modest-sized, government-provided, equal-amount funds to be used to run for office. That would limit the length and intensity of all campaigns. The hope is that most campaigns could be completed within a couple of months. Certainly the presidential race will require more time. Four to six months should be adequate.

Page 2

Frontiersman, 1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901

August 2007

So, with the stroke of his pen on pertinent congressional legislation, the President of the United States could put America back together politically, contrary to what "All the king's horses and all the kings men" couldn't do for Humpty-Dumpty. Voters, then, could elect candidates based not on the number of their sound-bite advertisements but on their actual abilities, character, and record. What a novel idea! Once elected, those officials could devote their time to doing the people's business instead of perpetually raising funds.

The results of such legislation would be far-reaching. Those in office wouldn't be beholden to any special interest group. Citizens who hadn't voted in years might do so again. Politicians, moreover, would have to become much better at doing their jobs if they wanted to get reelected. More importantly, America would once again have a government of, by, and for the people. Special interest groups and corporations would no longer be the main power base in this country.

Isn't this an idea whose time has come?

Minority Representation
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Suppose that, in a hypothetical election, a Democrat received 40% of the vote for a particular office, a Republican received 30% of the vote, and the Independent and Libertarian candidates received 15% each. If the Democrat is declared the winner, then sixty percent of the voters don't get represented. Suppose that, instead, every candidate for an office is always elected. Then, each office would be filled by several officials instead of being filled by one official. Then, the purpose of the election wouldn't be to elect a candidate to office but to apportion the powers of the office between all of the candidates for that office. In the above example, the Democrat would cast 40% of a vote in the legislature and the Republican would cast 30% of a vote. The Independent and the Libertarian would each cast 15% of a vote. Thus, the 60% of the voters whose candidates lost would be represented under my proposed system. Coalitions of minority votes, which actually represented the majority of the voters, might easily outvote the so-called majority. Also, there'd be more representatives in the legislature, several for each seat. Hopefully, that would make it more difficult to enact legislation, of which way too much is presently enacted. A final advantage is that the system wouldn't cost the taxpayers any additional funds. The Democrat would get 40% of the salary for the office, the Republican would get 30% of the salary, and the Independent and Libertarian would each get 15% of the salary, all according to the will of the voters. The more candidates there were for an office, the less each would expect to be paid while in office. Thus, the process would inherently limit the number of people who ran for office.

County Representation
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Politicians have a vested interest in making things as complicated as possible so that they can protect their jobs. Consider electoral districts. They've been modified, revised, and gerrymandered so that some of them remind you of spaghetti, snakes, or worms. There's a better way.

Every state in the U.S.A. is already divided into counties (or parishes or whatever). Those counties are the next political unit smaller than the state, like the states are the next political unit smaller than the Union. Instead of voting by electoral districts, why not vote by counties? The people of each county could elect a number of state assemblymen proportional to the population of the county. The county board of supervisors could appoint two state senators from each county. Then the people of the counties would be represented in the state assembly and counties would be represented in the state senate. There isn't any need for electoral districts.

As with most good solutions to a problem, this one has benefits beyond the immediate situation. In this case, the change would also tend to cause a state government to become a federation of politically independent counties. That decentralizes authority and moves the power closer to home. I like it.

August 2007

Frontiersman, 1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901

Page 3

Frontiersman
1510 North 22nd Drive
Show Low, Arizona 85901

Nothing is quite so convincing as a threat
with teeth in it.

— from Whisper from the Stars
by Jeff Sutton

Acknowledgments

My thanks to the following: Sir James the Bold; SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; Lord Jeffrey the Studious; and my mother.

— editor

Changing Times
Original Source Unknown.
Forwarded by Steve, of Fremont, California.
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1956: Mark shares his aspirin with the principal, who also has a headache, out on the smoking dock.
2006: The police are called. Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. All student cars are searched for drugs and weapons.

Alternate Meanings for Words
Attributed to the Washington Post.
Forwarded by Lady Nancy the Enchanting.

• Balderdash, n. a rapidly receding hairline

• Testicle, n. a humorous question on an exam

• Rectitude, n. the formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists

• Pokemon, n. a Rastafarian proctologist

• Oyster, n. a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms

• Frisbeetarianism, n. the belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there

• Circumvent, n. an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men

Frontiersman

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You can also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.

Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders please inquire. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

Page 4

Frontiersman, 1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901

August 2007

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue