Getting Downsized Was My Reward

Anyone who pursues a liberal arts education wonders what the ultimate pay off for their sacrifice will look like.  Mine was losing my job.

Allow me to explain.

I'm Not A Risk-Taker

Five years ago I took the one of the biggest gambles of my life.

Within the space of 6 months, I resigned from two full-time radio jobs, moved my family to Cedar City, Utah and enrolled as a full time student at an unaccredited school.

Plenty of family and friends tried to gently warn me about the risk I was taking.

To them, my walking away from secure employment with benefits to pursue a liberal arts education made about as much sense as bathing in gasoline and drying off next to an open fire.

I'm certain that had I bought a Harley or a grown a ponytail, my choices could have been written off as a mid-life crisis.  But in reality, I felt an overwhelming sense of personal mission steering me in pursuit of this type of education.

Deep in my core, I recognized a call to do more with my life than I had done.  I felt an intuitive understanding that if I were to fulfill my life's purpose, a world class education would be necessary.

The great souls who have shaped human history have always paid a dear price to become better individuals.

There is no high road or shortcut to realizing one's potential.

In late December of 2005, I took a deep breath and stepped into the unknown.

What On Earth Have I Done?

Trying to support my growing family on a third of our former income was only the first of many challenges.  At first, I was only able to secure part time radio work.  Eventually my hours became full time but my pay stubbornly kept its part time proportions.

Our savings quickly dwindled and financial worry dogged my thoughts relentlessly as debts mounted.

School required a heavy commitment of personal study time which narrowed my choices to focusing on supporting my family or doing justice to my studies.  I chose the latter as my figurative wolves howled at our doorstep.

Household and automotive repairs and maintenance began to accumulate, adding to the stress.  Our ability to pay our mortgage on time was becoming difficult.

We added two more children to our family and subsequently outgrew and had to replace 2 vehicles.

A stress-related condition called Alopecia areata caused large bald patches to appear on my face and scalp eventually leading me to shave my head to avoid the appearance of having mange.

In my heart I knew I was doing the right thing, but a nagging question would pop into my head every so often asking, "Are you sure this is worth it?"

I finished my undergraduate work in spring of 2008 and continued on in pursuit of my graduate degree.  By fall of 2009, economics dictated that I adjust my focus to providing for my family and my classroom studies ended.

My personal studies, however, continued.  They were supplemented by teaching opportunities that included professional speaking, writing, and teaching online classes. Even my radio duties afforded me a chance to continue to learn and teach.

As the economy continued to worsen and unemployment continued to climb, I clung to my radio job with a mixture of gratitude and frustration.  I was grateful to be employed, but seemed trapped in a dead end, low-paying job--that I happened to love doing.

I wanted to do more but was unwilling to give up the security of known employment for the risk of seeking greater opportunity.

"When will this education pay off?" I wondered.

I Get My Answer

The answer to that question came on the last day of February when I was informed that my position with the radio station had been eliminated as part of a reduction in force.

As the chill that accompanies bad news wore off, I sensed something very different was taking place in my life.  I had just lost my job in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Why on earth did I feel at peace?

As I prayerfully examined my options, I realized that two remarkable things had changed since I had committed to pursuing my education.  First, my view of the world had expanded.

Instead of radio being my sole means of income, I saw innumerable opportunities before me.  Not just to earn a paycheck, but to use my understanding and talents in ways that had a positive impact on those around me.  I could now write, speak and teach effectively to diverse audiences in widely varied settings.

Secondly, my education had created fruitful relationships with others who were likewise engaged in paying the price to fulfill their personal missions.

Those relationships, forged in the fires of personal sacrifice and intense study, produce individuals whose goal is to create rather than copy.  They develop leaders who prize the value of others and who labor to have impact instead of simply comparing themselves to the rest of the world.

Such leaders understand the need for teamwork in magnifying their own efforts.  They are connectors.

With this change in my worldview, I marveled as opportunity after opportunity gravitated to me as the word spread that I'd been downsized.  Amazingly, many of these opportunities not only aligned with my personal mission but also allowed me to continue to develop my talents and knowledge.

For the first time in my life, I was free to choose which opportunities best fit my purpose and my family's needs.  There was abundance in every direction I looked.  The stress of not having a job was threatening to give way to having more blessings than I was capable of receiving.

Now that's a problem I wish everyone could face.

I am now focusing on three highly promising ventures with more waiting in the wings.

It's no exaggeration to say that my job loss was a huge blessing disguised as a minor setback.  It was a blessing that required a combination of Divine Providence and a liberal arts education to truly appreciate.

Perhaps you've pondered making the deep sacrifice of gaining a world class education in pursuit of your life's mission.  As one who has just experienced the difference it can make, I can attest that it's worth it.
  

Food Safety at Any Cost?

Sitting down to our daily meals is such a commonplace occurrence for most of us that we scarcely give it a second thought.  But the safety of the food we eat is becoming the focal point of an increasingly intense tug of war between federal regulators and food growers and producers at every level-- right down to our own gardens.  The issue of food safety is closely tied to other issues that affect how and what we eat.  To better understand what's at stake when it comes to feeding ourselves, a bit of historical perspective is in order.

One of the most significant advancements in human history was the shift that moved mankind from the Nomadic age to the Agrarian age in which planting and harvesting largely replaced hunting and gathering as the principal means of obtaining food.  By creating permanent settlements, usually near a reliable source of water, societies found they could eat better, live better and enjoy far greater comfort than was possible within a nomadic existence.

Historian Will Durant in his series The Story of Civilization claims that the Agrarian Age may well be what made civilization possible since the growing, harvesting and storing of crops allowed mankind an unprecedented amount of leisure time to pursue education, art and culture.  Food was produced locally and wealth was measured by land ownership.  Even with the advent of civilization, a large percentage of people still produced roughly half of the food on their table, through gardening, and keeping a milk cow or chickens.  This changed drastically with the arrival of the Industrial Age.    

The industrial age greatly changed the entire landscape of how most people lived their lives.  People became more concentrated in larger cities and goods were primarily purchased at central locations.  Mass production and distribution created a huge disconnect in how the masses obtained their food.  Though food was plentiful, and available in greater variety than ever before, many people became completely out of touch with the means of producing food and, in turn, became almost entirely dependent upon others for their daily sustenance.  Purchasing our food at the supermarket became the norm and even a person who lived next door to a farmer or a dairy was far more likely to buy their produce or milk at the store rather than from their neighbor.

Mass production of food led to the creation of agri-business giants like Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland who along with other large food corporations have become major players in supplying our food.  These companies have also pioneered the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including plants, seeds and animals in order to produce larger yields.  This practice has raised concerns ranging from the implications of allowing the companies' control of seeds as intellectual property to the impact of genetically modified food upon human nutrition.

Now the Information Age is overtaking the Industrial Age and we are seeing a trend that steers away from the mass production approach that typified the pinnacle of the Industrial Age.  In the U.S., increasing numbers of people are choosing to "downshift" their lifestyles by leaving large cities and six figure incomes for a more modest, rural existence that, more often than not, includes having some land and producing a portion of their own food.  Community Supported Agriculture cooperatives (CSA) are catching on in many areas where residents can purchase shares in a small, locally operated farms that provide them with food produced in their own communities.  Farmers markets and private gardening are also becoming popular means of obtaining locally grown, organically non-genetically modified food within one's community.

While these local sources of food are gaining acceptance, they are still far from commonplace.

Few of us have encountered the specter of empty store shelves in our grocery stores and yet the system by which those shelves are kept filled is dependent upon carefully timed resupply and distribution that takes place every couple of days.  A truckers strike, bad weather or any number of other factors can prevent those store shelves from being replenished and at that point the learning curve then becomes incredibly steep for those who must now figure out how to feed themselves.   

The bottom line is that today a vast amount of our population no longer has any concept of what is required to grow, harvest and transport their food from the field to their table.  And in regards to the safeguarding the quality of our food, we have placed that responsibility in the hands of a few state and federal regulatory agencies.  But these agencies are now beginning to focus their attention beyond the mass producers of food products and to exercise greater control over small growers and local producers.

Numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that roughly 5,000 people die from food-borne illness in America annually.  But most cases of food contamination are traced to large scale operations and not the small local producers.  So why the increased focus on the local producers?

When the Food Safety Modernization Act was passed by Congress last December and signed into law earlier this year, it was billed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as the "most significant safety law of the law 100 years".  But the law has also become a flashpoint of concern for agriculture groups, small food producers and organic farmers who see the law as an unprecedented expansion of federal regulatory power over the ability of people to produce their own food.

In a nation where we always seem to be just one more law away from safety, the enforcement of current food safety regulations have resulted in SWAT teams raiding Amish farmers and organic farmers co-ops over allegations of selling products that haven't been properly regulated.  The further expansion of federal power in this arena raises the question:  Is there such a thing as too much safety?

The 80 page Food Safety Modernization Act moves the Food and Drug Administration out of the realm of mere inspection and into the realm of proactive prevention of food-borne illness.  It expands the enforcement powers for the FDA to where in the event of a food "emergency" or "major contamination" the FDA could place all food and farms under the the Department of Homeland Security; an agency which is mentioned no less than 41 times in the law's text.  The FDA will have the power to conduct warrant-less searches of the business records of even small growers and producer even if there is no clear evidence that a law has been broken.

Depending upon how the regulations are interpreted and applied, all food production facilities within the U.S may be required to register with the federal government and pay an annual registration fee.  Fines for paperwork infractions can go as high as $500,000 for a single offense.  Producers who sell or distribute food outside of government control could be prosecuted as smugglers.  To handle the increase of mandated inspections of food processing facilities and other provisions of the new law, the FDA will be required to hire more inspectors at greater taxpayer expense.

In fairness, the Act contains a number of exemptions (under certain conditions) for small farms and very small food producers who sell their wares within a certain geographical radius and have less than $500,000 in annual sales.  But the problem remaining is that the law is written broadly and vaguely enough to give the FDA a great deal of discretion.  Can we trust that the FDA will not expand its enforcement efforts to small growers and producers?  How many other regulatory agencies have experienced mission creep as time goes on?  It is much easier to prevent abuse of power by limiting government than it is to correct abuses made possible by ambiguity in the laws.

Concerns over the law have prompted Utah lawmakers, among others, to consider legislation that would exempt agriculture produced and purchased within the state of Utah from federal regulations.  Rep. Bill Wright's HB365 seeks to exempt Utah growers, both large and small, from federal agricultural regulations on products cultivated and sold within the state.  The Utah Intrastate Commerce Project was launched as a means to protect small farmers who engage in farmers markets or Community Supported Agriculture cooperatives from a harsh federal regulatory climate that places unreasonable costs and mandates on them.  This food sovereignty approach has been also pursued, with varying degrees of success, in Georgia, Wyoming, Vermont, Kentucky and Florida.                

Defenders of the Food Safety Modernization Act have expressed reactions ranging from puzzlement to scorn over those who would question the wisdom of the law, but it's not a matter of having intensive, inflexible regulation of every aspect of the food supply or having to watch our children die from eating tainted, dangerous food.  Local growers are easily recognizable within their local markets and have no incentive to produce tainted goods.  This is an issue where the correct answer is more likely to be found somewhere in between the two extremes.  

Economist and author Tom E. Woods offers a tongue-in-cheek characterization of the regulatory mindset as follows:

"Without [federal regulation], America would be populated by illiterates, half of us would be dead from quack medicine or exploding consumer products, and the other half would lead a feudal existence under the iron fist of private firms that worked them to the bone for a dollar a week."

The truth, of course, it that even with minimal regulatory oversight, people will not devolve back to cave-dwelling savages by default.

No one wishes to eat unsafe food, but there is much more to this law than simply providing safeguards to the food supply.  Whatever actual safety benefits may be found in the law, there is a corresponding economic impact and effect upon personal liberty that must be considered as well.  Even as food prices are steadily rising for American consumers, the prospect of growing more of one's own food is becoming increasingly more risky due to regulatory concerns.  Food is what sustains life and any law that complicates or exerts control over a person's access to or ability to produce food must be weighed against the likelihood for abuse by those in power.

Original Intent - An Essay You Must Read

We hear a lot of talk about "Original Intent" these days, but years of judicial sophistry have muddied the waters to the point that few of us are certain what the phrase even means.

Please take a look at how my friend Kyle Roberts explains the Original Intent Scam and the often overlooked sources we should be examining.  As the 10th Amendment movement is gaining steam in numerous states seeking to check out of control federal power, a clear understanding of original intent is absolutely vital.

Tragedy Spells Opportunity for the State

In Tom Clancy's 1986 WWIII novel Red Storm Rising, the Soviet Union's leadership finds itself in desperate need of a pretext to justify the invasion of West Germany in order to neutralize NATO.  To this end, the Politburo creates a fiendish maskirovka or deception for the purpose of rousing the support of their people while simultaneously galvanizing public opinion against West Germany.  The deception consists of a bomb planted in the Kremlin which kills a number of visiting schoolchildren.  Soviet state television deliberately plays up the images of the dead children and in short order the Soviet citizens are screaming for war.

I was reminded of this story following the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.  After the photograph of the firefighter carrying the bloodied body of tiny Baylee Almon had tugged at my heart strings for the 5th or 6th time, the thought occurred to me that perhaps someone might be using her image for the purpose of inflaming and polarizing public opinion.  But the question remained:  against whom would that outrage be directed?

The target, of course, was anyone who had spoken out against the Clinton administration's statist expansion of gun control laws, attempts to nationalize health care, and other government excesses.  In a classic example of guilt-by-association, Timothy McVeigh, who was later convicted and executed for his role in the bombing, was held up as an archetype of anyone who expressed dissatisfaction with the increasingly heavy-handed, parasitic behavior of their federal government.  Two weeks later, then President Clinton famously remarked in a commencement address at Michigan State University, "There is nothing patriotic about hating your government, or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."


As writer Will Grigg pointed out, certain government officials and their enablers in the press went so far as to assign meteorological significance to the voices of dissent by accusing them of creating a "climate of fear" and an "atmosphere of hate."  The officials' goal, which was largely accomplished, was to silence critics of government policy by equating dissent--of any sort--with extremist and violent activism.  It was also a craven and shameless effort to capitalize on the tragedy of an act of madness for the purpose of expanding government power to an even greater degree.  Tragically, it's a method that works.

Blogger Milo Nickels sums up the tried and true formula as follows:

• Step 1 - wait for tragedy to occur, or actually create the tragedy.
• Step 2 - spread propaganda through the media, so everyone believes your story about the tragedy
• Step 3 - pass laws, or institute policies, that take away people's freedoms.
• Step 4 - justify the increased Tyranny by citing the propaganda in step 2.

Which brings us to the events of the past few days.

  
The police hadn't even finished stringing up the yellow tape at the crime scene of the mass shooting in Tucson before power-hungry statists were predictably seeking a way to spin the bloodshed in such a way as to gain advantage over their political opposition.  The left was quick to try to link the shooter's politics to the right and vice versa.  A great deal of sound and fury has raged over the past few days as each side has desperately sought to hang Jared Loughner like an albatross around the other's neck.  And while this exercise in futility continues, the real exploitation is taking place under our noses.    

Contrary to the artificial left/right paradigm under which so many Americans currently labor, the true opposing sides in this struggle are the state vs. the people.  And the state is currently exploiting this latest event in order to glorify itself and to expand its powers even further.

Proof of this dynamic can be shown in a number of ways.  For instance, the shooting rampage killed 6 and wounded 14, but where has the media focused its attention?  We know of the Congresswoman who was wounded; we know of her staffer and of the federal judge who was killed;  we even know about the nine year old girl who was born on 9/11.  But what do we know of the others who were killed and wounded?  The honest answer is: next to nothing.  Why is that?

Surely their lives mattered, but since they cannot be linked, either directly or indirectly, to the state and its purposes, it's curious that they remain largely nameless and faceless to us.  Further proof of this bias can be found in the charges that have been filed against the alleged shooter.  The full might of the federal government has been brought to bear and it has filed charges attempted assassination in the case of the Congresswoman and federal murder charges in the case of her aide and the judge who were killed.  The other victims of the shooting are apparently considered less sanctified beings and the state of Arizona's prosecution of Mr. Loughner will have to suffice.

Even the language of federal officials has portrayed one man's act of insanity as a grave threat to the entire federal leviathan.  In the words of House majority leader John Boehner: “An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.  Such acts of violence have no place in our society.”  FBI Director Robert Muller described the shootings as, "an attack on our institutions and our way of life."  In the meantime, blogger Jim Wallis ratcheted up the hyperbole factor by calling the shootings, "an attack on the soul of the nation."  Where is that same sense of outrage when innocent people die at the hands of those in the employ of the federal government?

As journalist Bill Anderson so aptly puts it, Wallis, among others, is one "who sees literally everything in political symbolism. So, the rule of thumb is that if he cannot find a way to put an incident into his worship of the State, it simply doesn’t happen."  

But the state's biggest tell that it believes it is holding a winning hand in this tragedy is found the various bits of legislation being proposed that are intended to build yet another layer of legal separation between the federal government and the citizens it claims to represent.  One set of laws for the rulers, and another for the people.  It's a textbook example of what aristocracy looks like.

Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania is seeking to introduce highly ambiguous legislation that would stifle even peaceful free speech by outlawing "language or symbols" that could be perceived as threatening to federal officials or lawmakers.

Image courtesy of deathby1000papercuts.com

Not to be outdone, Rep. Peter King of New York is floating a proposed law that would prohibit possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of any "high profile" government official.

Other leaders like Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) suggested the Federal Communications Commission was “not working anymore,” adding she would look at ways to better police language (thought) on the airwaves.

Add to these proposed laws the various gun control proposals now being forwarded by various special interests and professional alarmists who've long been waiting for a bloody shirt to wave, and it should be abundantly clear that tragedy spells o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y to many among the ruling class.  None of these proposed remedies would have stopped Jared Loughner from carrying out his gruesome task.  But it should be clear to all but the most deliberately obtuse thinkers that his attack merely provided the justification for the imposition of solutions that have long been searching for a problem.

So what exactly is the end game that these political opportunists have in mind?  No one can say for certain.  But it appears that greater restrictions on our ability to speak freely, further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms and expanded government power to further insulate itself against the citizenry it purportedly represents all play a role in the desired end result.  How that could be portrayed as a positive development for the cause of liberty requires a curious combination of Orwellian double-think and slavish devotion to the state.  Don't fall for it.

           

Opting Out of Tyranny

[Note:  My personal experiences with individual TSA employees over the past 4 years have been uniformly positive.  Having been a passenger on roughly a dozen flights over that time period, I have never been mistreated, nor have I been subjected to the body scanner or had an enhanced pat-down.  My opposition to the TSA's current actions is rooted in the belief that their policies are totalitarian in nature and therefore anathema to the proper role of government.]

Last summer one of my children was sexually assaulted in broad daylight at a public park.  At the time of the assault there were scores of people nearby, but no one recognized that the assailant was unlawfully detaining my child while groping the child's body inappropriately.  It is particularly difficult for me that I was less than 100 feet from my child while this assault occurred.  Had I seen what was taking place I would have intervened without a second of hesitation, but it was only after my child informed me of the man's actions that the police were notified and the assailant was arrested.   He will be sentenced next month for felony sexual abuse.  To say that this incident has been stressful for my entire family is an understatement akin to suggesting that the North Pole can be a bit chilly this time of year.

I share this sad experience to illustrate a similar affront to decency that is occurring daily across this nation, in full view of scores of people, who, while clearly seeing what's happening to their children and loved ones, dare not lift a finger to stop the groping.  I refer to the so-called "enhanced pat-down" now being employed by Transportation Security Administration employees at airports around the country.  If there is a more clear example of oppressive government behavior in our day, I don't know what it could be.

If you or your family wish to fly on a commercial airliner, the TSA gives you the option (for now) of either submitting to being irradiated and having naked images taken of your body or to being thoroughly groped over every inch of your body by security officers who demand complete submission to their will.  Roll your eyes or utter the most minute protest to their actions and you are virtually guaranteed to be pulled aside, interrogated, browbeaten and threatened with missing your flight or even with arrest for failing to acknowledge their absolute authority over you.

Let me put it like this:  If you take a photograph of your child in the bathtub, you could be charged with child pornography.  If a TSA employee creates a nude image of your child electronically, he or she is simply "doing their job."  If a stranger gropes your child's body he or she could go to prison for sexual assault.  But if a stranger wearing a TSA uniform gropes your child's body, the act is sanctified by the state and you as a parent are forbidden to intercede.  

How on earth did a nation that prides itself on being the freest country on the planet come to accept the kind of surly police state behavior usually reserved for third world dictatorships?  Worse still, how did an American people whose ancestors tamed a continent and stared down some of the most tyrannical governments mankind has known become so timid that they have chosen to voluntarily geld themselves of their rights in the name of promised security?  If we are willing to silently suffer the indignity of ourselves or our loved ones being electronically strip-searched and to allow our private parts to be physically groped by strangers acting under the color of law, where exactly would we draw the line regarding government demands that we submit?

The use of nudity and humiliation as a means of breaking an individual's resistance to authority is a well-documented fact of human history.  From the way the Nazis systematically stripped the Jews of their identities and their dignity prior to their liquidation, to the way that captured U.S. pilots shot down in Vietnam were paraded naked through streets of the villages, to the treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq war, those wishing to exercise dominion over others have consistently used forced nudity as a psychological tool to subjugate individuals.

The fact that the airport security scanners are using ionizing backscatter radiation to peer beneath the clothing of airline passengers and crew doesn't make the procedure any less intrusive.  Contrary to the mild and foggy images used to sell the scanners to the public, the actual digital images are graphic enough to enable the viewer to discern if a man is circumcised or if a woman is having her period.

Furthermore, assurances that the images would never be stored or disseminated have already been proven false with the case of an Indian film star whose naked images were made available after a trip through London's Heathrow airport.  The TSA's own documents make clear that the machines possess the capability to store and transmit the images of scanned passengers.

Even the stance the traveler is required to assume while in the body scanner is reminiscent of one who is surrendering with their hands in the air.

The new enhanced and invasive pat-down being used at airports across the nation appears to be a not-so-subtle punitive measure that is being used to punish those who choose to opt out of baring themselves before the state.  Upon stating your intention to opt out of the scanner, you can expect the TSA employee to announce loudly "We have an OPT OUT!", at which point you will be directed to a screening area where the so-called enhanced pat-down will occur.  This may or may not be in full view of other passengers.  The pat-down itself has been described by a number of recipients as ranging between vigorous and rough with clear and deliberate contact with the breasts and genitals through the clothing.  Any protestation, any tears or recoiling from the screener's fondling fingers and the pat-down has to start all over again.  Make a big enough fuss and you'll be detained while law enforcement comes over to escort you out of the airport.    

Many TSA workers appear to be providing credence to the findings of the Stanford prison experiment that showed that in a situation with prisoners and guards, some of those placed in a position of authority over others will gravitate toward sadistic and abusive behavior toward those over whom they have power.  As in the Milgram Experiment in which individuals ignored their own consciences when prompted by an authority figure to inflict (what they believed was actual) harm via electrical shock upon another person, TSA employees have shown a clear tendency excuse the distress of those they're screening by claiming that they are only following policy.

With 450 body scanner machines expected to be in operation by the end of this year and another 500 expected to be installed next year, an even more disturbing thought is the prospect of such scanners being utilized for screening people at courthouses, bus & train stations or even outside sporting venues.  If we meekly submit and allow body scanners to become the norm for travel now, it's reasonable to expect that the state will find excuses for the use of them to become even more widespread in the future.  What then?

 Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation notes:

“Many of us grow up believing that government reflects the will of the people. But skeptics know better. Government has assumed more and more control over private life not because the people demanded it, but because power-seekers and privilege-seekers sought outlets for their ambitions. They then propagandized the public until a sufficient number of people came to believe government control was good for them."

Of course, the justification for what too many Americans meekly accept as necessary government misbehavior stems from the successful fear-mongering that predictably followed the 9/11 terror attacks.  9/11 "changed everything" we are told ad nauseam as the government scrambles to deal with the threat of terrorism by treating all of us as potential terrorists.  The folly of the TSA's current see-you-naked/feel-you-up approach to thwarting terrorism is best illustrated by the fact that the Israelis, who have a stellar record for terror-free airline flights, don't use the body scanners because they are considered nothing more than security theater.

Now some good news.  The overbearing state, which tends to act as if the only choices are between security and terrorism, is finally experiencing serious backlash to its latest ramping up of invasive security policies.  A revolt is brewing--not among the timid passengers--but among the airline crews who are also being subjected to unreasonable demands upon their dignity.  Flight attendants have filed a grievance with their union over the enhanced pat-down procedure that they are being forced to endure just like the passengers.  And a particularly courageous airline pilot named Michael Roberts has chosen to put his career on the line by saying "enough" to TSA functionaries who sought to run him through the same gauntlet of nuclear nudity and physical groping.   These are but two examples of fighting back, but they should serve to inspire those of us who prefer independent thought and liberty over timid groupthink to seriously question how we can make a similar principled stand for the freedoms we cherish.

We still have much for which to be grateful in terms of our freedoms and opportunities in this nation, however, it is a foolish belief that any government will keep cherished freedoms perpetually secure without first being checked and balanced to define its proper role. Ignorance of this principle has produced a dangerous complacency in which far too many Americans mistake merely giving lip service to liberty for the positive action required to defend it.

For my part, I cannot stand by while strangers in uniform molest me or my family members, therefore, I will no longer patronize any airline nor will I subject my family to the demands of the security apparatus until such time as the TSA ceases treating all airline passengers as terror suspects or worse.  If enough people refuse to lend legitimacy to a system that systematically abuses them, it will have no power over them and eventually fade into obscurity.

Love of Liberty is Considered a Mental Illness

Just a few generations ago, if a person needed a credible witness to establish their personal character in a court of law, they would bring in a member of the clergy.  Today when a credible witness is needed to testify regarding another person's character, we bring in a psychiatrist.  While this may appear to be a natural consequence of the progression of modern science, medicine and law, there is a very real danger that accompanies this shift.  When psychiatry becomes an arm of the state, it enables the abusers of state power to marginalize and to get rid of unwanted people.

This is not as recent a trend as many would believe, but according to Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, since it's  development nearly 300 years ago, psychiatry has consistently served as an arm of the law and has provided a means of dealing with those deemed inconvenient by the state.  But what the state considers a nuisance isn't strictly limited to deviants, or those with true mental defects.  It also applies to those who, for a variety of reasons, refuse to submit unconditionally to the state's authority or demands.

Let that sink in for a moment.

You don't have to be schizophrenic, or anti-social or criminally insane for state experts to pronounce you mentally ill and therefore a ward of the state.  If you are a free thinker, a constitutionalist, an Oath Keeper, a non-conformist, a peaceful activist or resistor, or if you practice any degree of civil disobedience or question authority--it's official--your disorder is now listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition.

Courtesy: UWSGO.com

Modern psychiatry calls your illness Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and it's not just for kids who won't eat their broccoli.  Take a few minutes and read for yourself this 3 page excerpt from the DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition describing ODD and its diagnostic features.

UWSGO.com highlights some of the key ideas from the excerpt that should get the attention of anyone who considers it their duty to stand for correct principles even if it requires swimming against the tide of public opinion:

The essential feature of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient. and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months...

Negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent Stubbornness, resistance to directions, and unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults or peers. Defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds. Hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder)...  

Defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds...

I may be oversimplifying what the psych manual is saying but it sounds a lot like if you're not willing to shut up, compromise, conform and go along with those who are exercising (state) authority over you, then you may be diagnosed as the ODD man out.  Pun intended.

Question the wisdom of being electronically strip searched and/or physically groped in order to board a commercial airline flight and you will be singled out for "special attention."  Refuse an order to confiscate lawfully owned firearms from private citizens who have committed no crime and you are a prime candidate for deep scrutiny of your mental health.  Engage in any form of civil disobedience, free thinking or non-conformity (sorry, Rosa Parks) and you will be treated as a direct threat to the authority of those in power.

When medicine and the state become bedfellows, there is a tendency for newly "discovered" diseases to have political implications.  This is especially true when it comes to the American Psychiatric Association and its tendency to vote disorders and diseases in or out of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by a simple show of hands.  A classic example of this was the vote in 1973 by the APA to remove homosexuality as an abnormal behavior from DSM II after intense lobbying by pro-homosexual activists.  Scientific research was not the basis for this vote, it was a purely political move and it has provided a toehold for the homosexual lobby to achieve a surprising amount of political power since then.

Note how often those who refuse to call homosexual behavior normal and acceptable are "diagnosed" as homophobic by their opponents.  They are accused, using the language of psychiatry, of suffering from an irrational, clinical fear of homosexuals.  In other words, disagreement equals a mental disorder.

How many children sit in a drug-induced stupor in government schools because their teacher or school counselor, in conjunction with health officials, became annoyed at their "hyperactive" behavior and followed the psychiatric playbook of drugging them into submission?

Even gun owners are finding themselves increasingly painted into a corner where among the criteria by which the state dictates whether one may legally possess or purchase a firearm is the question of whether the individual has ever been "adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution."  How difficult would it be to expand the definitions of what makes one "mentally defective" to include ODD?  Again, the concern here is that when government and Psychiatry team up to establish what constitutes acceptable attitudes and what is considered "anti-social", the conclusions always seem to miraculously fall in favor of desired government result.  Purely by coincidence, of course.

Under the brutal leadership of Joseph Stalin, millions of Russians found themselves in the gulag for what was ambiguously referred to as "anti-Soviet" thinking or activities.  The use of Psychiatry as a tool of oppression has been used by countless dictators whose experts eagerly labeled dissidents as mentally ill as a means of discouraging those who might be tempted to challenge the regime's authority.  There is a reason why despotic governments have favored some form of so-called re-education as a means of helping their subjects get their thinking right.  The problem with the dissidents, you see, is all in their heads.

Involuntary commitment and coerced or drugging non-conformists to solve their mental problems is a handy way to keep those who would make trouble for the regime under the state's control and effectively marginalized from society.  After all, who are you going to believe, the government and its experts, or that free-thinking lunatic in the straitjacket?

Here's something to consider from Dr. Szasz on the separation of Psychiatry & the state:

If we recognize that "mental illness" is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior. Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a "wall." At the same time, the State ought not to interfere with mental health practices between consenting adults. The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.    

 The battle for free agency is being fought on many levels.  It's critically important to know your opponent and his methods; especially those tactics that have been artfully concealed in plain sight.

Guest Commentary from Casey Anderson: Juan Williams, NPR & Free Speech

Last week, as you have undoubtedly heard in the media, Juan Williams was fired from his position as National Public Radio news analyst.  NPR claimed that it was not his proper role as a new analyst to communicate his personal opinions on air.  It is important to note that Williams is also a Fox News Contributor and it was during a Fox News Show, not an NPR broadcast, that Williams communicated his beliefs.

Blasphemer in the Temple of State

Williams stated he gets "nervous" whenever he sees someone in "Muslim garb" boarding a plane.  He went on to further communicate issues related to prejudice amongst other minorities.  Williams is a left-leaning Fox News Contributor who was making an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor news program when the comment was made.

What you are hearing in the media is mostly how it is unfair that somebody be fired for making known their conservative beliefs and being honest.  While this is a good discussion to be having.  There are two points that are missing from this national discussion.  The first discussion is whether or not the operator of a company should have the authority to fire an employee who they feel is not working under the guide of their role and responsibility or is negatively effecting the business at hand.  The second issue that is being avoiding is whether or not tax-payer dollars should be going to the National Public Radio.

National Proletariat Radio?

The choice is clear for limited government advocates: The government has no business managing the airwaves or managing a business that operates within those airwaves what-so-ever.  National Public Radio should be immediately defunded and property rights returned to citizens of this country.  It seems to this author that this should be an argument of the vast majority of citizens if you realize the underlying principle of avoiding government hindrance to the free-market.  If we have NPR functioning as a pseudo-propaganda arm of whichever socialist or fascist president happens to be in office in that term, it will surely promote an unfair playing field when comparing it to other media sources whether they be liberal or conservative.  How are radio hosts who actually have to earn their support ever going to compete with those who simply steal it through taxation?  I will also support the hard working Americans who grow their business through hard work and perseverance despite their political affiliations or ideologies.

The underlying principle is that government should not be in the business of convincing voters to support its failed policies.  Medicare and HHS recently announced a $30 million project to promote the benefits of the new Obamacare legislation in hopes of garnishing more support.  This is the biggest issue currently with Washington D.C., they feel we just are not educated enough on the issues.  So, when 70% of Americans oppose Obamacare, they pass it anyway and then spend your money (and your children's future) to convince you otherwise.  They also fire news analyst who offer contrary opinions.

However, with NPR being a largely publicly funded entity, it makes this issue more complicated.  Just as this administration has the authority to fire an employee they feel is not performing their duties appropriately, the next one will as well, and the following.  So, if Barack Obama is subsequently fired in 2012 and voters express a clear choice in the direction they want the administration and NPR to go - I expect we will not hear much bickering from the left when NPR is and rightly should be defunded.  Although I highly expect there will be rioting in the streets when the liberal left-leaning media does not have their way.

Casey Anderson-Campaign for Liberty Regional Coordinator