Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 677, July 1, 2012

"We gotta get off this rock."

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]

Letter from B. Potratz

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Paul Koning

Letter from Ted Ball

Letter from Mike Blessing

Letter from Chav el Chuco

Letter from Ken Valentine

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Re: "Where No Libertarian Has Gone Before" by L. Neil Smith

Thanks for the reminder.

Aside from the fact that you CAN get "a 133 mhz Pentium w/color monitor, 1.6 Gbyte hard-drive and 6X CD ROM (for) $299, a '96 Neon, $1112.25, and a '96 Plymouth Voyager (for) $2111" now ;) not much has changed, has it?

Sadly, I don't see it getting any better, even on the SF vs. Fantasy front. I was long ago struck by the precience of Niven, Pournelle & Flynn in their depiction of the rise of EcoFacisim and the concomittant rise of Fantasy/decline of Hard SF ("Fallen Angels", 1991).

Here we are 21 (16) years later, having shifted from "Global Cooling" to "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change", only the "nuance" of the EcoFantasiests mad grope for control has changed.

We gotta get off this rock. I'll gladly leave it to the Fantasiests then.

B. Potratz

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Recommended reading:

Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Breaking News | June 23, 2012 | 49 Comments
(Laura Tyco) The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.
[Read More]

L. Neil Smith

[ And remember, if Cheney's got a shotgun, stand behind him!—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type


On the 21st of June 2012 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ( republished an article entitled "Guns and Moses" originally published in New Jersey Jewish News. This inspired me to write the Kind folk at JPFO (good people we should support with our money if we should happen to have money.) Here is a copy of that letter (note it may be modified to correct spelling, grammar, or to simply add thoughts or to try to clarify thoughts expressed in the original.):

Many of the issues you (referring to the folk at JPFO and NJJN) bring up in discussing Jewish attitudes towards guns seem to apply to many Catholics and other Christians. Why are people of supposed good faith unwilling to arm themselves and learn at least the minimum skills to effectively use weapons to defend life, liberty, loved ones and property?

I think one of the causes is the mouse problem. People know mice are dangerous because they carry illness and contaminate food and therefor have to be killed. However they are just cute enough that we feel squeamish about killing them. It is an unpleasant responsibility and therefor we develop a fear of mice.

In this sad world we may be required to use force to protect life, liberty, loved ones, and property. Guns and other weapons as well as the skills to fight are the necessary tools to carry out this responsibility. Harming others in self defense and accepting the idea that there are people who are evil and will force you to harm them to keep them from harming you are unpleasant things to contemplate. It makes some of us squeamish. They blame the tools of self defense, not those who make self defense necessary. Picking up a gun means accepting the idea that there is evil in the world and that we may have to forcibly confront it. Better to trust "rough men" (See Orwell) to do this chore and blame the tools of self defense than the criminals who force us to use them.

I do not know about Jewish theology, I do know that Catholic theology teaches the idea of the sin of Presumption. It means you presume G-d will do something for you that you should do for yourself, among other things. I trust the Lord to protect me from evil men, but I also understand that He sometimes does this by giving me the will, courage, strength, and access to the necessary tools to defend myself, and that sometimes this is how G-d protects me. To dare to demand that the Lord defend you when you will not deign defend yourself is a sin. Certain elements in our society encourage this sin, and claim they are being more virtuous than those who accept the responsibility of self defense. Those who fall for this are deluded and betrayed fools, and being tempted into the sin of presumption.
(end of edited version of letter originally sent JPFO)

Uh, Albert I'm not a believer. Anyhow isn't sin basically violating the rights of others recklessly or maliciously? (restating Heinlein)

Why yes, so it is. However, certain attitudes and acts are likely to lead to sinful acts and therefor entertaining them are considered sinful by theologians. And I submit that asking others to risk their lives, health and wholeness of limb to defend you, your loved ones, your liberties, and property while running around with the attitude that you are "too good" to do these things for yourself is sinful. Certainly I sleep safer because "rough men" (and women nowadays) are protecting my LLLOP. But someday a threat may get past them, or to be honest they may be corrupted and become the enemy to be feared. Some day G-d may expect me to use my courage, cunning and strength (all gifts He gave me) to protect me and mine. In a more secular vein for the nonbeliever, someday I may run sadly out of luck (you of vulgar mind are free to restate this). And it is presumption to not prepare for that day. It is stupid. And if you are a believer it is a sinful attitude.

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Warning—Public Schools May Cause Cancer

Yesterday's TV news reported that some children attending high school in the state of Washington had come home from school with severe sunburn. The school's excuse was that state law requires them to stop kids from applying sun screen unless they have a letter from a doctor. The reporter interviewed some edu-weenie who claimed this law was necessary "because of all those additives in sun screen lotions".

Yes, indeed, additives like SPF.

So if you don't want your children put at risk for skin cancer, avoid public schools.

Paul Koning

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Re: Presumption

De-cloaking for a minute...

I'm a Christian, yet an oddball about it. Or maybe I hang out with other oddball believers. We have no desire to tell anyone what to do. We help when needed, tend to be a relaxed bunch, laugh a lot, and most are armed. Not armed hoping to "cross swords" with anyone, pardon the mixed metaphor, simply unwilling to be *prey*.

I absolutely don't want my conscience to be anyone's guide, and expect the same in return. That IS the problem with governments of apparently ANY stripe: they all seem to share a motto, "let my conscience be your guide." Thanks, but no. I have one already. I'm a recovering Republican, never was a 'Crat, and haven't voted for a major party candidate for a national post in over 12 years. (Should be longer, though I deceived myself with that owl-sh*t argument about "wasting your vote" for quite a while.)

I get in healthily boisterous discussions with plenty of Dems and GOPers, secular and believers alike, trying to get to the heart of why they want their "village habits" codified into law for the rest of us. You've heard the answers before from your own acquaintances and friends dwelling in those categories in the prior sentence— none of them is new.

Chaps my ass, it does, since all of 'em—secular & not, 'Crat & 'Can—appear to want their political beliefs to be a blanket over us, for our own good as they define good (and all, therefore, are arguments of utility). However, I don't believe that the politicians they choose to vote for are motivated by utilitarian concepts. IMO, they are mostly (if not all-y) confiscatory redistributionists ~ OR ~ want 5th grade Sunday School rules set over all of us. The former tend to be insufferable elitists, the latter tend to be "dogwhistles."**

For our own good.

Yet another reason to have a roscoe handy.

** You've probably read El Neil, Neale, or Richard B. (and others) explain that term. Don't stop me, I want to read it again: a dogwhistle is someone whose sphincter is so tight, when he farts, only dogs can hear it.

Ted Ball

[ There is a town in Texas named "Roscoe"—Editor (who has been there) ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

A Challenge to Republican Candidates

This is a challenge for all of those Republican candidates who like to portray themselves as supporting free markets, fiscal restraint, individual rights and Constitutionally-limited government.

For legislative-branch candidates (U.S. Congress, the Roundhouse, County Commission)

Name TEN (10) EXISTING instances of spending that you want to eliminate outright from the budget that you'll have some say over, should you be elected.

Name TEN (10) EXISTING regulations over the private sector that you will sponsor legislation to repeal, should you be elected to office.

Name TEN (10) EXISTING agencies that you will seek to defund and shut down, should you be elected.

For executive-branch candidates (President, etc.)

Name TEN (10) EXISTING instances of spending that you want to eliminate outright from the budget that you'll have some say over, should you be elected.

Name TEN (10) EXISTING regulations over the private sector that you WILL push your corresponding legislative branch to repeal, should you be elected to office.

Name TEN (10) EXISTING executive-branch actions over the private sector that you WILL FULLY REVOKE, should you be elected to office.

Name TEN (10) EXISTING agencies that you will seek to defund and shut down, should you be elected.

Redistribution of this post is fully encouraged. By any medium necessary. RE-POST FREELY!

Mike Blessing

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Eric Holder has just (1443 MDT 28 June 2012) been cited for contempt of Congress. As expected many caucuses associated with liberal/democratic causes just walked. I posted the following in FB and repeat it here. If you agree copy, paste, post, and share the hell out of it on FB:

Those mestizo Members of the Hispanic Caucus who failed to vote in favor of holding AG Eric Holder in contempt of Congress are traitors to their race. It was Mexicans who died when Operation Fast and Furious armed the cartels. They are backing a man who kills our carnales.*

President Obama's allies threw down the race card first. Well here's a Raza card back at you.

Chav el Chuco
Address Unknown

* Old Pocho Spanish for brothers.

And as MY father (a "more than" totally disabled combat veteran) once told me, "All the things we fought AGAINST in World War II, our own government is doing to us today."

And he said that nearly 17 years ago.

Ken Valentine

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Guns walked and so does Holder*

The Justice Department announced it will not prosecute Attorney General Eric Holder for Contempt of Congress over his refusal to surrender Operation Fast and Furious documents to the House Oversight Committee. In the words of the Cajun "Quelle surprise!"

First the guns walked and now the boss gun runner is walking. I say this because if you read the hatchet piece in Fortune Magazine and listen to ATF Agent William Newell's interview on MSNBC the BATFE is blaming the Justice Departments Prosecutors in Phoenix for not prosecuting straw buyers working for the cartels. The finger pointing begins, she made me eat the apple.

Wouldn't Eric Holder be the guy who should have busted these prosecutors for not doing their job? Why do I get a feeling that soon the Republicans will be filing articles of impeachment and /or calling for a special prosecutor?

Make a pledge to go after Eric Holder's scalp part of the price for your vote this 6th of November.

A.X. Perez

[ * No relation—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Big Head Press