Sam Aurelius Milam III
We recently received from the Post Office a form titled "Rural Customer Delivery Instructions", PS Form 4232, October 1992. The form contained, among other things, the following instruction: "To avoid delay and to assure prompt delivery of all mail, please complete this form and return it to your carrier. Enter the name of each person who may receive mail at your address in the ten spaces provided below. Include the names of all children and/or employees. Print the full name, including middle initial, of each individual ...."
There's no reason why a name should be necessary to make a delivery. The address is sufficient. To claim that a name will improve service is patently ridiculous. Am I to believe that if I neglect to include "Resident" and "Occupant" then they'll stop delivering all that junk mail?
A statement on the reverse side of the form sheds light on the real reason for the form. The statement is euphemistically called "Privacy Act Statement". Embedded within the statement is the following: "... As a routine use, this information may be disclosed to an appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation or prosecution proceedings ...."
There you have it. The Post Office doesn't need a name to deliver the mail. The government does need a name to keep track of you.
Jurisdiction In Loco Parentis
Sam Aurelius Milam III
There are many points of confusion in the debate about rights. One of the most widespread is the theory of equal rights. There's no reason why everybody ought to have the same rights. Even one exception to "equal rights" will disprove the theory, and there's a good exception available. It has long been recognized that children do not have the same rights as adults. If an entire group of human beings can be set apart, for any reason, then that proves that there can be exceptions to equal rights.
It happens, however, that children do not have any rights at all. This is a result of county government. If you ask at any county "family court" you'll be assured that the county has jurisdiction over all children within its boundaries. Notice that county courts will grant "custody" of children to parents. Custody is the control that you have over something that you don't own, but which you possess at the pleasure of the party having ownership. Parents do not have jurisdiction over their children. They have custody. The county has jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is power and control, which proves ownership. Therefore, the counties own the children. Anything that is owned is property. Therefore, the children are property, owned by the county. Property doesn't have rights. Therefore, children do not have rights.
I'm sure that there will be objections that people can't be owned, that the Upteenth Amendment forbids it, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. However that doesn't change the facts. You can prove for yourself that the counties own the children by trying to defy the county on any "family" matter. If you provoke the county sufficiently in such a matter, then it will reclaim its property — your children. There will not be anything that you can do about it.
If we want children to have rights, then we must begin by destroying the jurisdiction over them exercised by counties.
Warped Values — Really, Really, Warped!
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Why should Bill Clinton resign? Janet Reno didn't resign, and she openly accepted responsibility for the deaths of all those people that the government killed in Waco. Killing civilians in a religious compound is a lot worse than having a sexual affair. If mass murder isn't an impeachable offense, then a little perjury about a sexual affair certainly isn't.
People who believe that sex is a worse offense than mass murder are fundamentally sick people. They should spend more time watching each kind of activity up close and in person. Maybe they'd change their opinions.
It's long past time to stop yammering incessantly about inconsequential nonsense and start finding ways to bring the real criminals to justice, people like Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, and Lon Horiuchi.
to the Editor
Dear Sam -
Where had all the money gone? I agree with your evaluation. G. B. Shaw said in addition: Money is only a medium of exchange, a symbol of value. It represents the value of a certain amount of human labor, for example, a product produced by work, such as a head of lettuce. Suppose everyone worked hard for five years & saved all their money. Then everyone took a year off without working. They would starve. This is because the money gets stale, like the loaf of bread it represents, or rotten, like a head of lettuce. In a capitalist society, the money must be invested intelligently, in order to keep people working productively, to keep goods & services being produced & bought & used. When money is invested foolishly, it piles up unproductively, as in Microsoft or Amazon or Russia, & its value melts away. That's what's happening to all the money in the world right now. Because the current system is rigged so that only incompetents have power, all the money in the world is melting away. It's a Darwinian thing.
I agree with your assessment of the Lewinsky affair. Here your hatred of women has helped you see the truth.
You miss some basic cliches of advertising in "Busted". Most advertising is a lie to sell a product. It is often based upon Freudian interpretations of reality, e.g. that most guys are only interested in one thing. Whether most guys are indeed only interested in one thing, which is questionable, does not effect women's rights. If most people believed that man was an instinctual animal, who couldnot control his physical drives, all laws, even all social mores, which you advocate in place of laws, would be pointless & futile. They are based upon the belief that man has the freedom of will to choose. Even Freud believed that.
I admit that dictionary definitions of "right" are unsatisfactory. The Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary perpetuates the idea that rights & privileges are synonymous. But here in the U.S., people assume that everyone has rights, but only the rich have privileges. In reality, no one has rights, not even the rich. They too must conform. If they play the game, they can keep their privileges, until the game goes bust, which is just around the corner. The problem with your definition is, as Eric says, that the theory, not the practice, of democracy, is that in a free society, the Supreme Court will uphold your rights, which are rational, in spite of the mores of the majority, which are often irrational. Today we see Jewish politicians & journalists trying to hold Clinton & an unwilling Christian society to the merciless mores of Jewish Old Testament tradition. Even if the majority Christian mores agreed, & the polls say they don't, democratic theories of rights would still defend Clinton. But contemporary democracy is so rotten that the system does not uphold even the rights of the semi-wealthy president. He hasn't played the game to the satisfaction of the ruling class.
"We are only one of many members of the UN, & all of them (except England & Israel) hate us". And yet 1) the US doesn't pay its dues, & 2) the UN usually has to act or not act according to the will of the US. That's my point, & guess what? That's why they hate you.
— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
1. Money doesn't spoil. If it isn't durable then it isn't money.
2. I don't hate women. I hate the repressive and authoritarian agenda pursued by the feminists. I'm also not too crazy about the hypocrisy of women who deny being feminists while taking every possible advantage of the privileges provided to women by authoritarian feminist policies.
3. Your theory of our sexual nature doesn't explain what's happening in the country today. My theory does. For example, if your theory was correct, then Clinton would have controlled his "physical drives", to use your words. Surely the rational part of him knew that the benefits of the affair didn't justify the risks. Whether you like it or not, he didn't control his drives because he couldn't control them. Where women are concerned, most men are largely (to use your words again) "instinctual animals". A theory that doesn't explain the observations is invalid, no matter how desirable or politically correct it might be. A theory that does explain the observations is valid, however much you might dislike it.
4. How can you talk about women's rights in one paragraph and then claim, in the next paragraph, that nobody has any rights? That's inconsistent. Also, if women have rights that are different from men's rights, as you seem to believe, then women's rights are not equal to men's rights. In that case, why do you keep talking about equal rights? I think you're confused.
5. It is impossible for the Supreme Court to uphold my rights. Only I can uphold them. If I rely on the Supreme Court to uphold them, then they become privileges.
6. The U.S. will have no influence over the behavior of the international criminal court.
Net Watcher's News
NASA gave Michigan State University $40,000 to draw up a list of universities deserving of NASA grants. Included on the list: Michigan State University.
To their credit, NASA officials pretended to act surprised.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
— Learning About Quilts
Dear Learning About Quilts
No need to ask her! There's hits, balls, and strikes.
Do You Remember When...
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may 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 publications. 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, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor