After the Storm

     Whenever there is a mass shooting a storm of hysteria
powered by a few noisy people sweeps over the nation.  The
shrieking voices obscure rational thought and reason.

     Legislators in Illinois introduced a bill to confiscate
semiautomatic firearms and other guns.  They claim that such
arms are not hunting weapons.  Please note that per FBI
statistics more are murdered in the US with hammers and clubs
than with rifles.

     Semiautomatic guns are hunting weapons.  I began
hunting with a semiautomatic rifle while in high school.  Most
of my friends used semiautomatics for hunting and target
practice.  I still use them.

     The even bigger error is that the right to bear arms is
about hunting.  The right to bear arms is about self defense. 
Still, the right to bear arms isn't primarily about defense against
common criminals, though such defense is important.

     Hubert Humphrey was a Democrat senator, vice president
under Lyndon Johnson, and 1968 Democrat presidential nominee. 
Humphrey stated the case for bearing arms, "The right of
citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to
be always possible."

     I am not aware that anyone ever accused Hubert
Humphrey of being some kind of right wing kook.  Humphrey
made the statement half a century ago.  Then the threat to
liberty, security and prosperity by an ever expanding, dominating
government was but a shadow of what it is today.

     Those familiar with the history of governments are well
aware that governments, left unchecked, ever expand their power
until they become totally despotic.  The only real limit on
government power and tyranny is the will and ability of citizens
to resist tyranny.

     For so long as rulers fear resistance to despotism, those
rulers will tread with care.  Remove the fear barrier and there is
no stopping them.  It is beyond the space available to even touch
upon why voting won't stop the wannabe tyrants.  As long as
citizens are armed and dangerous to tyrants, the citizens are
unlikely to need to use their arms.  It is only after the arms are
gone that the need arises.

     Consider some recent well known exploitive tyrannical
governments: Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, North Korea,
East Germany, and Cuba.  All of these governments made sure
the citizens were unarmed.  China is now lecturing the USA on
the need to disarm its citizens.

     Sometimes arms are misused.  This does nothing to make
weapons special.  What isn't misused?  Some murders drown
their victims.  Five thousand or so people drown in the US every
year.  Should we ban water?  Fires kill.  Some of those fires are
deliberately started.  Will we be better off if we ban fire and live
in the cold?

     The death toll from autos and alcohol, either alone or in
combination with each other, is well known.  Lawfully used
prescription drugs kill tens of thousands every year.  Many die
from food poisoning.  Should we ban autos, alcohol, and food? 
Some may remember that the attempted ban of alcohol only
created more problems than it solved.

     We should seek to minimize the misuse of weapons.  We
will never be totally successful.  Creating a world where only
criminals own weapons won't make us safer.  In that world it
will be only a matter of time until everyone, except the masters,
are reduced to servitude.  There is a reason why the ruling class
is bent on disarming us.

     "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the
security of all."  "The great enemy of the truth is very often not
the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth,
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --  John F. Kennedy

     "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of
arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

The Double Standard

     Most people are aware there are individuals known as
libertarians.   How many know what it means to be libertarian? 
What distinguishes libertarians from non libertarians?

     Most people don't believe it is right to threaten to hurt
their neighbor to get his money.  Murdering or even threatening
to murder a neighbor is even more unacceptable.  Most of us
frown upon private citizens threatening any peaceful person
simply to gain an advantage.  "Do it my way or I will hurt you"
isn't an acceptable way to get what you want from someone else.

     Most people accept the use of threats and force against
aggressors.  If your neighbor is bent on robbery, murder, rape or
arson, threatening to hurt him if he doesn't stop is generally
accepted by civilized people.  It is also acceptable to follow up
the threat with actual force when needed.

     The most basic laws of government are directed at these
same ends.  Few object to government using force against
robbers and other aggressors.  So far we haven't found a
distinction between libertarians and the rest of the crowd.

     Many people who abhor private threats do a complete flip
when it comes to government.  Government endlessly threatens
peaceful people with "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."

     Don't build your house too high.  Don't use marijuana. 
Don't sell raw milk.  Don't let your grass grow more than six
inches high.  Don't grow herbs instead of grass.  Go to jail if
you don't have grass in your lawn.  Don't arrange flowers
without a license.  Don't braid hair without a license.  This isn't
even a good start on the threats government makes against
peaceful people.

     Most people who reject the private use of threats against
peaceful people accept and encourage government's use of
threats and force against peaceful people.  We see substantial
disagreement over whom government should threaten.  Most
people don't support ending government's use of  "Do it my
way, or I will hurt you." against peaceful people.

     Anyone who says "there ought to be a law" is urging
government to say to someone "Do it my way, or I will hurt
you."  If that someone isn't an aggressor, the threat is against a
peaceful person.

     Most people oppose some threats by government. 
Usually they oppose the threats directed at them. 
Simultaneously they urge government to threaten others.  Many
find no problem with threatening the free speech of others while
demanding to be free from threats against their own speech.

     Our society is permeated with a double standard.  Most
people are only quibbling over when and why government
should threaten peaceful people.  These battles come down to
might makes right, or at least might makes possible.  The most
powerful prevail.  Constitutions are nothing more than speed
bumps on the road to domination.

     The few people who totally oppose government, or
anyone else, threatening peaceful people are called libertarians. 
Libertarians are often seen as anti government.  All the
libertarians oppose is government threatening peaceful people
with "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."   Libertarians appear to
be anti government only if government makes threats against
peaceful people.

     Government long ago enacted laws against most forms of
private aggression.  Thus, every new law is all but certain to be
either a threat against peaceful people, or redundant.

     Aggressive laws turn people against each other.  Each
special interest battles other special interests.  This breeds
animosity, strife, and violence.  The proliferation of laws doesn't
bring peace and prosperity.  Rather, it shreds the fabric of
civilization.  Our only hope is that many more people understand
and adopt the libertarian philosophy of refraining from initiating
force and violence against peaceful people, even disgusting
peaceful people.

     Everyone can still shun, refuse to associate with, or
cooperate with those with whom they disagree.   Of course, to
achieve this balance we must get rid of all the laws that threaten
to hurt individuals refusing to associate with others to whom the
government has granted special status.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

A Brief History of Weapons

      Weapons are as old as the human race.  History doesn't
record the first time one human hurled a rock at another. 
Perhaps the first weapon was a club or a stone blade.

     Human history could be viewed as an arms race.  The
story so far is rocks to lasers.  So long as human minds remain
sharp, the race won't end.  If there is an ultimate weapon that
can't be beaten, we are far from discovering it.

     Early weapons relied on muscle power.  Strength was all
important.  Skill made a great difference.  When two men with
swords faced each other in combat, strength and skill dominated. 
Giving a weak untrained man a sword doesn't come close to
making him the equal of a strong, skilled swordsman.

      A few weeks' training for the novice wouldn't make
much difference.  A sword wasn't much of an equalizer.

     Then came firearms.  Firearms made a difference because
they were different.  Firearms were the first common and simple
weapon that harnessed the power of nature.  A 90 pound woman
had the strength to hold a gun and pull the trigger as effectively
as a 200 pound man.  The little woman might even be better at
it than the big man.  Is it any wonder that guns came to be
called equalizers?

     Skilled swordsman didn't welcome this development. 
Even the strongest, most skilled swordsman was most likely to
lose if he brought his sword to a gun fight.  If he traded his
sword for a gun he still lost the great advantage he held when
sword went up against sword.

     Those who seek to harm others generally aren't looking
for a fair fight.  They want every advantage they can gain.  They
are likely to have second thoughts about the joys of violence
when they may be on the receiving end.  They live by the
principle that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

     Government is based on force and intimidation.   The
essence of government is "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  It
is natural that throughout history governments have tried to gain
a monopoly on weapons.  This was much easier to do when
trained mussel men could dominate untrained citizens, even if
the citizens had equal weapons.  Thus, the Japanese government
gained a monopoly on swords.

     Effective weapons in the hands of the citizens are always
a threat to those who would exploit the citizens.  Guns are only
equalizers.  They don't guarantee advantage.  Those who want to
use violence prefer to use only the threat of violence.  This is
much safer for the one making the threats.  The mere fact that
one is armed reduces the chances he will be attacked.  This
principle applies whether the threats come from government or
common criminals.

     When arms are common, everyone is less likely to be
attacked.  The anti gun zealot is safer from home invasion where
it is known that many homeowners are armed.  The burglar
doesn't know which homeowners are armed.  Of course, the anti
gun zealot can eliminate that protection by putting up a sign
"Gun free home."

     In the USA where guns are common 15 percent or so of
break ins are into occupied buildings.  In England legal guns
have been all but eliminated.  Those who shoot intruders are
prosecuted and jailed.  Over 50 percent of break ins are into
occupied buildings.  Those who want to eliminate guns should
chew on that for a while.

     So, why do so many want to eliminate the guns that
make them safer?  It is partly because of ignorance about the
benefits from gun ownership.  It goes far beyond ignorance. 
Many people are infected with gunaphobia.  They have an
unreasoned, illogical fear of guns.

     Such people are unlikely to ever change.  We must not
let them win.  There is no good reason why we must all suffer
in insecurity because of the mental problems of the gunaphobs. 
We don't ban water because some fear it.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

I'm Sick of Healthy Mice

    In recent years I have noticed a trend that lies somewhere
in the realm between aggravating and annoying.  Every article
about a "medical break through" leads off  promising something
that sounds too good to be true.  The promises range from pills
that cure cancer to a silver bullet to drop Alzheimers in its
tracks.

     I have never been impressed by the headlines.  After all,
if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

     Over time I have developed the ability to predict most of
what the articles will say.  That can save reading time. 
Invariably the magic cure is based on discovery of a gene or
substance in mice.

     The researchers discovered a way to cure cancer in mice
or give them memories that would embarrass an elephant.  I
never considered forgetful mice with cancer to be among the
worlds ten greatest problems.

     At some point the reporter admits that the magic cure
only works for mice.  The admissions usually continue.  The
cure usually only helps mice a little bit.  Next is likely to be the
researchers claim that the discovery holds great promise for
humans.

     Then comes the admission that no one knows if, how, or
when the cure may reach the human race.  Some speculate that
trials on humans may be only years down the road.  Others
won't even hazard a guess about when, if ever, the cure will be
available for people.

     Usually I find the suggestion from the researchers that
lots, and lots of money will be needed to journey down the trail
and find the cure at the end of the rainbow.  Instead of using
bait to catch mice, Are they using mice for bait to catch money?

     Where is all of this leading?  Will the world someday
have 200 years old, cancer free mice?  Will mice be able to
regal cats with every detail of the mice's battles with the cat's
great, great, great, etc. grandfathers?  Will those mice also have
perfect teeth and be fit and trim?

     Why are we investing all of this effort in building a
better mouse?  Has everyone forgotten that if we build a better
mouse trap, nature will breed a better mouse?  Nature usually
works for lower fees than do research scientists.

     I can imagine other possible results.  Will most of the
mega millions for research end up down holes dug by the mice's
larger rodent cousins?

     I suppose the sensational headlines and lead paragraphs
are designed to catch readers.  The mice are bait to catch people. 
How long will this trick work?  For some time now I have
greeted such headlines with a somewhat less than enthusiastic
"Ya, sure."

     When I do occasionally read the article, I usually find
that my enthusiasm was still more than warranted.  How long
before such overstated headlines completely cease to attract.  
Don't worry.  Headline writers will come up with a new wrinkle.

     Perhaps the research is worthwhile.  When you don't
know where you are going, you may have to try many wrong
roads before you find one that doesn't lead down a mouse hole.

     Is it too much to ask for an end to the inflated and bogus
claims about minor accomplishments that may or may not lead
to something worthwhile, even if not miraculous?  It probably is. 
For the record, I am sick of hearing about healthy mice.

     How about even one article where the research made the
mice so sick they couldn't even remember that they were sick? 
Better yet.  An article about mice that after the research couldn't
even remember that they were mice?

     This column may be a bit short.  Last year was one of
those hard years.  It required 53 columns rather than the usual
52.  I'm tired.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2012
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Are We Still Here?

     Around the first of November I usually start looking
forward to the winter solstice.  That isn't because I enjoy the
shortest day of the year.  December is as dark and unpleasant as
it gets this side of a coal mine.

     The pleasant part of the first day of calendar winter is
that the next day the sun will be up for a few more seconds,
even if we can't see it through the clouds.  Dark, gloomy, short
days are more bearable when the days are getting longer rather
than shorter.

     The beginning of calendar winter is the last official
beginning of winter.  By the time calendar winter rolls in to
town the beginnings of solar winter and meteorological winter
are fading in the rear view mirror.  Solar winter is half over. 
The winter solstice is much more pleasant when viewed as the
middle of winter rather than the beginning.

     The joy of the most recent winter solstice was tainted by
the Mayan fans' claiming that the world would end.  I must
admit that I was a wee bit skeptical about that claim.  Many past
predictions of the end of the world have proved to have been a
bit overrated.  The doom sayer of 2011 postponed the big event
from May to October to complete the arrangements.  He still
failed to pull it off.

     When I awoke on December 21, immediately I suspected
something had gone wrong again.  Or, was it that something
hadn't gone wrong?  I guess the answer to that question depends
on your views about the end of the world.

     I heard that the big event was planned for sunrise. 
Maybe that was wrong.  I should at least wait for the day to end
before making fun of the failure of the prediction.  To be on the
safe side I would wait until the 21st ended everywhere.  I doubt
that the Mayans knew about the International Date Line.  Still,
why not play it safe?

     I was skeptical enough that while waiting I wrote this
column.  Why not be prepared just in case the world didn't end
on schedule?

     I am now quite certain that the world didn't end.  How
can I be sure?  I never experienced the end of the world.  How
can I be sure what it would be like?
     The Mayans might have been dyslexic.  Perhaps the
world is to end in 12/12/21 rather than on 12/21/12.  Does this
mean that we must now wait with baited breath for almost a
decade?

     What on earth is baited breath?  Is it painful?  Is baited
breath any thing like a baited fish hook?  Does baited breath
have a worm on it?  Perhaps it only smells like a can of worms
that spent too much time getting a sun tan.  If that is the case,
after waiting for almost a decade with baited breath we might
welcome the end of the world.

     There are other opinions about the meaning of baited
breath.  Some even claim that the expression is really "bated
breath."  They trace it back to Bill Shakespeare.  Does anyone
who has read any of Bill's writings really believe we should
consider him an authority on spelling?  If you are waiting with
baited (bated?) breath to learn more about baited breath, hit the
Internet.

     Disclaimer:  I assume no responsibility for any harm,
psychic or otherwise, you may experience in your search.  At
least buckle your seat belt.

     Maybe the world did end on schedule.  We simply
weren't observant enough to notice.  The doom sayers were
hedging their bets even before the big day dawned.  They were
saying that only the world as we knew it would end.

     Perhaps it did end.  Depending on what you know, the
world as you know it may end every day.  If the world ends
every day, that might take the fun out of predicting the end of
the world.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2012
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Free at Last

     Four decades ago I was a member of the Napoleon
School Board.  The board's negotiator worked out a union
contract requiring teachers who weren't union members to pay
the equivalent of union dues.  I was the only board member who
voted to reject the contract.

     My father worked for a railroad in Indiana when Indiana
was a right to work state.  I remember his comments about the
repeal of "right to work."  He said the unions ceased to care
about or serve their members.  The unions merely collected dues
from their captives.

     Michigan's sudden move to join the ranks of "right to
work" states where no one is forced to pay unions for the right
to have a job caught most people by surprise.  The unions, on
short notice, managed to rally the forces to reaffirm the basic
reason why I have despised unions for as long as I can remember.

     The union violence was a mere shadow of what I
remember.  Some individuals bashed a reporter and cut down a
tent.  Apparently some teachers lied and called in sick to join the
protests.  Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. 
Apparently lying about being sick is okay.

     Some claims made in opposition to mandatory union dues
were jaw droppingly outrageous.  Heading the list was Barack
Obama's claim that unions built the middle class.  Increased
productivity built middle class prosperity.  Without that
increased productivity unions could have done nothing to
increase average income.  You can't consume what isn't made.

     If any one group built the middle class it was farmers. 
Increased production by farmers reduced the percentage of the
work force farming from about 90 percent to around 2 percent. 
That 88 percent of the work force makes the increased wealth
we have today.

     Farmers weren't the ones who brought on the agricultural
revolution.  The real movers and shakers were the inventors,
entrepreneurs and investors who provided farmers with new and
efficient means of production.

     Another outrageous claim was that eliminating mandatory
payments to unions would return us to the share cropping days
of the old South.  A few years ago my oldest son moved from
Michigan to a right to work state because he couldn't find a
decent paying job for an engineer in Michigan.

     There were 23 right to work states before Michigan
joined the club.  None of them seem to be overrun by share
croppers.

     Unions whine about free loaders.  Who are the free
loaders?  Suppose you tell your neighbor you don't want him to
mow your grass.  He mows it anyway -- and sends you a bill.  If
you refuse to pay the bill, Are you a free loader?

     Unions force representation onto non-members, then
demand that they pay.  If unions don't want to represent
non-members, the unions should quit doing it.  If laws are
preventing this, the unions should work for repeal of any laws
forcing them to represent non-members.  The freeloaders are the
unions that charge non-members for representation they don't
want.

     Right to work by itself isn't going to turn the Michigan
economy from dust to gold.  It may help a little.  Neither is
"right to work" the "right to work for less."  Unions are the ones
who reduce the average wage, and charge for doing it.

     Only increased productivity can raise the average wage
and standard of living.  Strikes, slow downs, union work rules,
etc. all decrease productivity.  Because the unions decrease
productivity, the wealth pie from which we all get our piece
prosperity is smaller than it would be without union interference.

     That smaller pie means the average piece is smaller too. 
Every gain one worker gets because of unions comes out of
other workers' pockets.  The battle isn't between labor and
management.  It is between unions and everyone else.

     Originally I hated unions for their violence.  I eventually
learned enough to despise unions because they are frauds claiming
credit for what others have done.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2012
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Tax the Poor?

     Many things seem intuitively obvious.  Often the obvious
conclusions are wrong.  Many never figure that out.  Nowhere is
this more true than in matters of economics.  Some ignore sound
economics because they believe economics is boring.

     The disaster that voters court by voting based on wrong
economic conclusions won't be boring.  Is an exciting disaster
better than being bored?

     The controversy over whom to tax and how much oozes
with false knowledge about economics.  I don't know to what
extent the politicians are ignorant and to what extent they merely
take advantage of the voters' ignorance.

     "Tax the rich" is popular because to most people it is
code for "tax someone else."  The big myth is that taxes are
detrimental only to the person who pays them.  If the myth were
true, taxing the rich would make some sense.  The rich won't
feel much pain from paying a bit higher tax.

     Before laying on the taxes we should consider who,
besides the taxpayer, will be harmed.  Rich people save and
invest.  No mater how great the income of an individual he will
never be rich if all he does is spend.  If all he does is spend, he
will be poor the instant the income stream stops.

     The person who has millions isn't likely to greatly change
his life style or spending habits merely because his taxes go up
10 or 20 percent.  Instead he will invest less.  Net investment in
the USA is down about 20 percent since the beginning of the
recession.

     Another way of putting it is, we have eaten 20 percent of
our seed corn that produces future wealth.  Any tax that
decreases investment will only reduce production and wages. 
Everyone will suffer, not just those who pay the tax.

     When we spend instead of invest we can never undo the
damage.  Even if we go back to investing we never recover the
lost investment.  We are all poorer today because of the decade
plus of lost investment during the 1930s and 1940s.

     When we don't invest we don't build factories, mines,
harbors, trains, and all the other things that make workers more
productive.  The only way wages can increase is through
increased investment.

     Taxing the rich is but a minor annoyance to the rich.  It
can devastate marginal workers and the unemployed who need
new investment to provide them with more productive, better
paying, jobs.

     The tax that will have the least detrimental, long term
impact on everyone is a tax that does not reduce investment. 
The only way to implement such a tax is to tax those who don't
invest.  That would mean taxing only the poor and spendthrifts. 
Spendthrifts are only one paycheck away from poverty.

     Taxing the poor will reduce their spending on
consumption.  Government, or the recipients of government gifts,
will spend the money.   The government spending may be
wasteful.  Still, it will replace the spending taxed away from the
poor.

     Investment will still sustain increased productivity. 
Eventually this increased productivity will allow even the taxed
poor to regain their lost purchasing power.  Tax away the
investment capital and we will all spiral down into a bottomless
economic pit.

     Thus, taxing the poor, while stopping short of the point
of taxing them into starvation, will in the long run hurt the poor
less than will taxing the investment capital away from the rich
and anyone else.  I'm not advocating increased taxes for the
poor, or anyone else.  Instead, cut government spending.

     Like it or not, government spending will be cut -- 
drastically.   The most we can do by increasing tax rates is
postpone the inevitable cuts in spending and make them more
severe.  Continuing down the tax and spend super highway we
will soon consume the rest of our investment seed corn.

     We can't consume what we never produce.  We are now
headed back to the world that existed before the industrial
revolution.  Most politicians in D.C. are shouting "Full speed
ahead."

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2012
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284