Ron Paul for President 2008

Dr. Paul's Writings: A New Declaration
by Ron Paul, Dr. July 3, 2006

On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth that they were free.

They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the “injuries and usurpations” that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” But 230 years later, taxation with representation has not worked out much better.

Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes.

In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans, work from January until early July just to pay their federal income taxes, state and local taxes, and the enormous costs of regulation. Only about half the year is spent working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or education.

It is easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But blame also rests with those who expect Washington DC to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution and pass only constitutional spending bills, politicians would have no choice but to respond.

Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut—but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th.

Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.

When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration.

The Ethics of Torture

from The Jewish Ethicist - The Ethics of Torture
by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem
The duty of rescue and the right to self-defense.

"Q. What does Judaism say about torturing suspects in order to obtain life-saving information?

A. This highly topical question is the subject of a recent article by Rabbi J. David Bleich in the latest issue of Tradition magazine, devoted to the topic of "War and the Jewish Tradition". This column is basically a summary and brief commentary on Rabbi Bleich's analysis, rather than an original approach to this complex issue.

Rabbi Bleich adopts what seems to me an entirely novel ethical approach to the torture issue, based on two concepts of particular importance in Jewish law: the duty of rescue, and the right to self-defense.

In the European and Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, the duty of rescue is very limited. Rabbi Bleich writes that very few jurisdictions impose any sanctions at all on someone who is able to rescue but fails to do so. Many reasons have been suggested for this omission. One is that sanctions could be counterproductive by encouraging people to remain far from the site of disaster so that they could not be punished for not rescuing; when there are a number of potential rescuers there is a difficulty in singling out whom the duty falls on; and so on. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is the orientation of European law towards rights and punishments as opposed to affirmative duties.

By contrast, Jewish law imposes a binding and very demanding level of obligation to help others when their well-being or even their property is in danger. The Torah commands us, "Don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow" (Leviticus 19:16); rather, we are obligated to take affirmative action to help him.

Jewish law, like other legal systems, recognizes the right to self-defense. Harming another person is of course normally forbidden, but when that person threatens us we are allowed to act aggressively to protect ourselves. A critical question here is, what is the ethical justification for this right? Is it self-defense per se or is it the culpability of the attacker? Rabbi Bleich explains that in Jewish law, a person may be considered a "pursuer" even if they have no culpability. For example, if the mother's life is threatened during childbirth, the emerging infant can be endangered to save her even though he or she obviously bears no culpability for the tragic medical situation.

Putting these two principles together, Rabbi Bleich concludes that any person with life-saving information is obligated to reveal it (duty of rescue), and that the right of self-defense would justify aggressive actions to compel the knower to disclose his information. Rabbi Bleich writes: "By failing to act the potential informant makes it possible for a calamity to occur. . . It is thus clear that the law of pursuit sanctions any form of bodily force, including mayhem, when necessary to preserve the life of the victim."

As Rabbi Bleich points out, this analysis applies fully only when there is certainty that the person in question can and will provide the information needed to defuse a "ticking bomb". Uncertainty can arise here in many guises: is there a threat at all? Does this person indeed possess the information needed to neutralize the threat? And will torture be effective in eliciting the information? (Rabbi Bleich makes it clear that torture can never be sanctioned when less painful methods will be fruitful.) Obviously these are serious doubts, and experts are divided on whether torture is generally an effective means of obtaining information at all.

Another reservation here is that we have to clearly establish the informant's duty to disclose. Since his status as a "pursuer" is due to his passive refusal to reveal information he has, there can be no right to harm him if he has valid reasons for keeping his secret. Rabbi Bleich devotes some discussion to this complex angle.

I want to comment briefly on Rabbi Bleich's analysis. The "ticking bomb" scenario is a well-known ethical dilemma, and Rabbi Bleich's approach is quite different than the usual ones. In a "duty ethics" approach, some acts are considered absolute wrongs. Either they can never be sanctioned, or can only be sanctioned in the presence of a higher duty. So we would either prohibit torture categorically, or else weigh its harm against the interrogator's ethical duty of rescue. In a "consequentialist ethics" approach, the question is more quantifiable: does the benefit to the potential victims outweigh the suffering of the informant as well as the potential for ethical deterioration if torture becomes commonplace?

According to Rabbi Bleich, in Jewish law the hinge of the argument is the obligation of the informant himself to help others. In this surprising fashion, the sanction for torture becomes an expression of his humanity, rather than of his inhumanity. We are allowed to cause him pain precisely because we insist, despite his enmity, on viewing him as someone who has his own ethical obligations to his fellow human beings. This seems to me an innovative and uniquely humane way of looking at this challenging ethical dilemma."

Mean People Suck!

Something that really rankles me are employers who think they own you body and soul. I've spent my time in jobs that try to possess you that way. All I have to say about that is here.
And while we're at it, why do people have to be mean? What kind of person rips someone's guts out figuratively, then laughs, and says, "Just kidding!"? Do people really think that's okay? Or is it just an overt expression of subconscious sadism?
It's very disheartening to be verbally eviscerated then expected to smile, laugh and nod and act like things are okay, as if their words had no impact whatsoever. If they didn't have meaning behind their words or intent to spark a reaction, why say anything?

Subconscious sadism. Hmm. Maybe it makes them feel better, but it makes me pretty sad.

Coffee Geeks and Pop Art ... mmmm coffee

Something I haven't thought about in a long time is the concept of edible art. The phenomenon doesn't seem to have as much emphasis and exposure in current popular culture as it has in the past.
Recently I stumbled on a new variation of edible art. Latte art takes the concept of edible art to a whole new level. Some of the creations are simply brilliant.



How do they do that??

As I continued reading and surfing, I discovered that true latte art is "pourable art" ... and that "etching" is a variation of latte art. And then there are the "latte art technicians" and the helpful "milk frothing guides." Maybe I've barely tapped (etched?) the surface of this art form.
Who knew?

I love Barbie.

I can't help myself, I just love Barbie. No way can this be explained, it's too complex. Or too simple? I don't know. The dolls are just so beautiful, how can you not love them? Maybe it's not the dolls. It's just the clothing - the gowns, and the SHOES!


Naturally I started surfing and lo and behold, there are Barbies for adults (read: serious collectors). You can really sink some serious cash into this habit.
So far I've limited myself to collecting images. Take a look. You can even make your own album! (I haven't decided if this is a good or bad thing.)