Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 596, November 21, 2010

"Protecting our lives by depriving us of
any reason we might have for living them"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

Act Quickly: Time is Short

If you don't know about this, then you'll know now!



(NaturalNews) Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.

"It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God."—Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower [link]

This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep—the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.



OR you won't have anything SAFE to eat.


ACT NOW: [more info]

E.J. Totty

Enemy of the Good

"The perfect is the enemy of the good," is a widely known aphorism. I've read it at least once written "Better is the enemy of good enough." The context was the accuracy issues with the AK series of rifles. Essentially the point was that it is better to get out a somewhat less accurate rifle now than a tack driver five years from now. You'd think that the best thing to do was to get a good enough rifle now and work on having the better rifle later, but that's just one opinion.

Sometimes though we settle for better instead of going on to good enough. Consider conceal carry laws in Texas. A few years ago you could not carry a handgun in Texas (as much because of our reputation for gun fighting as anything else) except to and from the range or gun shop, traveling, or hunting or fishing. It was okay to carry long guns in public if you didn't cause alarm (good luck on that one).

The situation improved in the mid Nineties with the adoption of concealed carry licences. this was sweetened by the fact that in Texas you licence the carrier, not the gun, so you can carry back up pieces. Around 2008 this was improved that by laws allowing people to keep pistols concealed in their vehicles even without licenses.

Definitely better than the situation before. However this is not good enough. Good enough is Constitutional carry, aka Vermont carry. Open or concealed carry without a license.

Texas (and other states) have better gun laws than they did twenty years ago. We should not settle for better, on gun laws or other issues of liberty. As long as we are stuck with governments we should push for good enough. In these cases better should only be a stepping stone to good enough.

A.X. Perez

Mr. Bonneau,

Re.: "Letter from Paul Bonneau"

Do elucidate: Do you, or do you not believe in the idea of "intellectual property?"

Yes, or not?

If yes, then your last missive is without qualification.

If not, then your missive is naught but a deception.

You cannot have it both ways.

E.J. Totty

Murder in El Paso

El Paso , Texas has anomolously low murder rate for 2010, thank God.

Without counting Fort Bliss we have had a total of 4 murders, with Fort Bliss 5. This is how it breaks down:

WeaponEl PasoFort Blss
Baseball bat1-

Justifiable homicides break down as follows:

WeaponEl PasoFort Blss
Baseball bat1-

So 25% of all murders to date in 2010 (40% if you count Bliss as part of El Paso) were committed with firearrms. However 50% (66.67% if you count Bliss as part of El Paso) of justifiable homicides were carried out with firearms. A higher percentage (vastly higher) of justifiable homicides than murders are carried out with firearms.

Query, does this stat hold up in parts of US where murder and justifiable homicide are higher? Put me wise please.

A.X. Perez

To which MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway) replied:

Murder by knife, baseball bat, truck? TRUCK? Sounds like the folks of El Paso need to buy more firearms. Might have stopped the truck murder anyway. El Paso being so close to all the crazies in Mexico does make these stats look very low.

No murders in Newcastle that I know of. At least not in the last 50 years or so. Don't think we've ever had a "justifiable homicide" either—at least not in a long time. I'll have to ask some of the old timers here.

We did have a woman attacked on her property recently—right in my neighborhood. Very few details are available yet, but it looks as if she must have known the assailant because she left her home, unarmed unfortunately, and walked out to confront a man outside her gate. He knifed her in the gut twice. She's not cooperating with the investigation and neither is her husband. Might be interesting if he knows the guy and gets his hands on him... but I don't know what the hubby's plans are, naturally.

No more than one or two misdemeanor assaults a year... unless you count mutual combat in the bar fights once in a while. Old, abandoned mine shafts are handy... but no unpopular politicians or bureaucrats (or newspaper editors) have disappeared or been found dead to my knowledge. Dogs that bother livestock or people are shot from time to time, but that's about it.

Everybody else just more or less minds their own business. Strangers are noted and watched with purpose—and handy hardware if they are transient men. You can bet the folks in this neighborhood are watching... But we expect things to actually get better as the transient workers from other states move out for the winter. Living in a tent or RV is not fun in January here. And if the economy doesn't get better, they may not come back. Breaks my heart... They are mostly responsible for the little drunk driving, theft and vandalism.

We have not had a jury trial here in over 10 years, and that was for a cattle trespassing/land dispute, I think.

Sorry, but I'm not much help. That's just the way it is in rural Wyoming. :-)

MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway)

And Ward Griffiths replied:

In New Jersey, self-defense is illegal. So by definition, there is no such thing as justifiable homicide.

Ward Griffiths

A final comment from A.X. Perez:

While researching murder rates and weapons of choice between murderers and people acting in self defense (yeah I know it's been done, but societies change over time and old stats may no longer apply) i ran into an interesting stat. That the murder rate has been declining is old news, but that the self defense killing rate has risen 33% may be a bit of a surprise.

This statistic has little to do with the debate over private firearms ownership. However it does reflect the fact that people in the US are deciding to take responsibility for their own safety and well being. this is a rejection of the police state favored by so called conservatives and learned helpless promoted by the liberal left.


A.X. Perez

Re: "Temet Nosce" by Boyd W. Smith

Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your article and the guide to the draft version of the paper submitted by Iyer et al.

Please be advised that your use of the words "physiology" and "physiological" in your article is wholly incorrect. The proper terms are, respectively, "psychology" and "psychological."

It might seem a bit of a niggle, but there's a helluva difference between the physiological—which has to do with the physical and chemical processes of an organism's life—and the psychological, which bears upon the functions of the mind as manifest in mentation (conscious and otherwise) and behavior.

Certainly, there are disorders in which physiological derangements result in psychological (psychiatric) dysfunction—so-called "organic" psychopathologies—but it is not yet possible to state with any reliability that there are what might be called visceral (i.e., truly physiological) processes which predispose to the manifestation of such psychological traits as are evaluated in the study subjects interrogated to attain the findings reported by Iyer et al.

I would encourage you to pursue this subject further. In 1988, David Bergland brought to my attention a book titled Please Understand Me by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates (1984), and there has been much otherwise written regarding what are called Meyers-Briggs personality and temperament types. If you are not already familiar with Kiersey and Bates' take on the Meyers-Briggs model—which I consider a valuable interpretation of the concept—I strongly recommend their works, both for what I might call clinically qualitative advantages as well as for accessibility.

As Mr. Bergland demonstrated in our conversation, libertarians tend strongly to fall into the "NT" portion of the four major Meyers-Briggs temperatment types. That's the "Mr. Spock" sort you described in your article as "cool."

Keeping with the Star Trek line, in fact, we might look at the original series' triumvirate as Keirsey-Bates temperament archetypes. Kirk is plainly the SP "man of action," Dr. McCoy the NF "touchy-feelie," and Spock the methodical and rational NT "thinker."

Of course, there is no SJ "organization man" on the bridge of the starship Enterprise. Those hidebound and cement-headed sons of bitches would never leave the bottom of a good, solid gravity well.

In terms of morality, libertarians tend to hold (with Robert A. Heinlein) that:

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.
(Hurting yourself is not sinful—just stupid).

With that in mind, it is logically inevitable that we libertarians should not accord either religious belief systems or "tradition" much weight—if any—in moral valuations.

I have found repeatedly in conversations with social (i.e., Christian religious) conservatives the sudden presentation of an expression identical to that which one would expect upon the face of an ox immediately after the impact of the knacker's hammer—a sort of dazed, unfocused surprise for an instant—when each realizes that this coldly rational, highly educated, implacably articulate pillar-of-the-community type standing before them advocates laissez faire, laissez passer, laissez-aller to an extent that would provoke an instant Kzinti scream-and-leap response from the conservative's deadliest enemies on the social and poltical left.

Absent objective proof that we have trespassed against the rights of other specific individual human beings—by violating such persons' unalienable rights to life, to liberty, or to property—we cannot and will not concede culpability for any wrong whatsoever.

But within those parameters, we judge ourselves—and everybody around us—far more stringently than will any conservative or "Liberal."

Really pisses 'em off.

Richard Bartucci, D.O.

To which Boyd W. Smith replied:

That is the result of my not checking my spell checker. I myself am a horrible speller and rely all too much on spell checkers. I has bitten me more than once.

I should have caught that typo before I sent the article. I did mean "psychology" and "psychological."

Boyd W. Smith

"Bad speelers of the world untie."

[Correction applied to article—Editor]

Re: "The TSA—A Modest Proposal" by Simon Jester

Sir, First to the pleasantries—could you extend my regards to Mike and Manny? Also, the Prof, if possible?

Now, to the meat of the matter. As a man with NO body modesty taboo, AND an intense dislike of "authority" figures, I would instead do things a little differently. I would, fist off, wear lace up steel toed boots (combat style, or higher) that take a long time to remove. I would ALSO wear clothes with MANY Zippers (think 80's punk style). Many bracelets, rings, etc. Then, when they started in on me, I would refuse both a patdown AND the scanner, and INSIST that the only safe way is to be naked. I would then disrobe. COMPLETELY. I guarantee there would be very few people who make the flight. I have, on several occasions, raised hell in courthouses regarding Illegal Search and Siezure.

How many of your rights will you sacrifice in the name of "SECURITY"?

Yesterday, I went to the County Seat of Steuben County, New York, the county in which I currently reside. I left my pocket knife (1.75" blade) in the car. I was forced to empty my pockets into a tray. Put my cellphone in the tray. Put the envelope of paperwork in the tray. And walk through a metal detector. With my normal good grace, I complained about the violation of my rights against unlawful search, to which I received the following reply. "Shut up and go through the detector again, you missed something." After 2 more passes, they made me remove the belt from my pants, they wanded my zipper and the American flag hatpin in my hat, and finally gave me permission to replace my personal belongings.

I told the Blackshirt (County Sheriff) that this was a ridiculous waste of time, and that there were many better ways to protect human life than harassing American citizens. He said "Oh yeah, wise guy? Well, why don't you enlighten me?" I said that if they stopped violating the 2nd Amendment and allowed American citizens to be armed and protect themselves, none of this would be necessary. I went on to say that 9-11 would have turned out differently if the passengers on those 4 planes had been allowed to carry guns with the new frangible bullets (safe to use in pressurized environments). He sneered at me, and called me "Ignorant and un-informed" I called him a "Jackbooted Nazi Thug" and went on my way.

After completing my business there, While leaving the building, he flagged me down, and told me not to come back into the building unless I could keep "A civil tongue in my head" I must admit, I told him to shove it, and that I would enter any building I so desired that my taxes paid for, and if he didn't like it, he could lump it. I added that I also have a Constitutional right to speak my opinion, and he had no power to prevent it..

So, to my point. Are you happy surrendering your rights in the name of safety? Do you feel safer walking through metal detectors an public buildings, rather than being allowed to protect yourself? Or am I a lone whack-job, railing futilely at the "Will of the People", refusing to accept this brave new world? I do not accept that, but I am interested in YOUR opinions.

(This is ONE of the articles I've written on the subject on News Vine, an internet blogsite. Keep up the good work.)

Neale Osborn

Re: "Revenge" by A.X. Perez

Al, I know the death penalty is a very sore point with MANY in the Libertarian movement. I, personally, object to allowing the state permission to murder ANYONE. Neil can attest that I have not always felt this way. I operated on Heinlein's expressions on the topic in Starship Troopers upon the hanging of the baby killer. Now, I am more in line with his Professor Bernardo De La Paz's views as a rational anarchist- I would neither ask ,nor require, any individual to act for me or "in my benefit" if I felt the need was present for someone to die. I would weight the evidence, make the decision, pronounce the sentence, and execute the person if I felt it necessary. I would, of course, PREFER that the perpetrator receive that outcome "at the hands of the intended victim, at the scene of the intended crime" (L. Neil Smith) in an armed society, but I WOULD kill the motherfucker who made the mistake of harming MY family.

Neale Osborn

To which A.X. Perez replied:

I admit I'll make exceptions for my kin being the culprit killed in self defense, killed by accident or "misadventure." Hate it but..

But when one persongoes out with the intention of robbing, raping, or otherwise abridging other people's libeerties and kills another person(s) in the process he needs to be killed, Period.

In the other cases Wereguild is due. How anyone else has a voice accept as a neutral party to make sure the right person pays compenstion or dies is beyond me. If the state were acting as this third party I would bear it, as long as we hae to have a state. But when the state presents itself as the vicim or survivor due compensattion puzzles me.

A.X. Perez

Dear Florida Libertarians,

I just wanted to congratulate you on your decency and integrity in demanding Wayne Allyn Root's removal from office. Please don't let anybody talk you out of it. The man is living proof of the importance of the Zero Aggression Principle in all libertarian endeavors.

Please allow me to call your attention to one of my most recent projects, my online e-book Where We Stand, which is available for free at I wrote it for three purposes: to introduce newcomers to real libertarianism; to act as a campaign guide for libertarian candidates; and to embarrass people like Wayne Allyn Root right out of the movement (although I originally had Bob Barr in mind).

It will be available as a dead-tree book sometime next year.

Thanks again; you have made my day,

L. Neil Smith

Regading Nancy Pelosi

The Democrats have voted to Keep Pelosi as their leader in the House. One must ask, are these guys cutting their crack with PCP and meth or what?

While I disagree with most of her policies and am glad she was so ineffective I am also concerned by the fact that such total incompetence by democratically (philosophy, not party) elected leaders is an invitation for tyrants to rise and "clean up the mess." Bad as she was, worse is always possible, and it seems the democrats are doing all they can to make sure worse happens.

A.X. Perez

Yeah, here's the REAL MESSAGE on so-called "AGW"

Get ready for it: Investors representing over $15 trillion call for U.S., international action on climate change





Climate wasn't ever the matter at all.

They want us to fall for the BIG LIE.


E.J. Totty

Check this out!

Photos of Soyuz TMA-18 Descent Module Landing:

E.J. Totty

It's more than frustrations

On on the 20th of November 2010 an article was posted stating that Barrack Obama recognized that the American people were frustrated by the TSA.

The American people are not frustrated. They are royally pissed. After (at least) a generation of federal agencies claiming extraConstitutional powers , a situation exacerbated, not excused, by the current "war on terror," the American people are ready to explode. At the same time they have been given just enough of an excuse that as long as it was someone else's rights being tromped on this was bearable. But now it's everyday average middle class Americans going about their honest daily business that have to put up with the humiliation of being seen naked or/patted-down without probable cause but just as a "precaution."

For decades minorities within the FBI, DEA, ATFE and others walked roughshod over people's rights, usually strange, politically incorrect people. (I will concede that the majority of federal agents are honest decent men doing their best to enforce the law under the Constitution, but only to ask them, "why the hell didn't you have the balls to stop the bums who were trashing the Constitution?) The American people went along with this, hell the American people applauded this. Well, now they are finding out what having rights violated mean and they no longer find it amusing.

Perhaps this outcry will lead to a greater jealousy of civil liberties and people standing up for their rights. Perhaps it will lead to a new era of respect for civil rights and a care to display this respect openly. Or perhaps we will snuggle into our metaphorical blankets and go back to sleep.

A.X. Perez


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Big Head Press