Wrong is wrong, but it's your right.

Let me lay my cards on the table at the outset and say that it is not only my belief, but my absolute certainty, that homosexuality is an aberration. This does NOT mean that I believe people who are homosexual should be persecuted; they have the right to exist just as does any individual who is pulling their own weight and not infringing on anyone else's rights. In this country, the United States, a person has the right to be wrong as long as he is not coercing or hurting anyone else. And, in case you missed my point above, homosexuality is wrong.

How can I say this? Let's reason it out together.

Once all of the niceties such as romance, courtship, bonding, etc. are stripped away, human sexuality is for one purpose and one purpose only: procreation. Flowers, candy, long walks, long talks, gifts, cooing and cuddling are all just preludes to the need to perpetuate the species. Yes, sex is fun, but it's fun because it has to be to maximize couplings and create the next generation. Heterosexual sex is, therefore, natural in that it follows biological correctness. Yes, there are some practices that heterosexuals engage in that lead to a procreative dead end (birth control, sodomy), but, in general, heterosexuals are on the right track.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, are a procreative black hole. Their sexual acts do not, and cannot, ever, contribute to the perpetuation of the species. The sexual actions they engage in are not in accordance with nature, hence, their actions are unnatural. If something is unnatural it means it is so against nature that it does not contribute to the advancement of the species and, in fact, is against the species. So, homosexuality, as both an act and a philosophy, is anti-human.

Over the last generation or so, there has been a persistent cry from militant homosexuals that they did not choose the way they behave sexually, but that they were born that way. Scientifically, although there has been no physical evidence yet found to back up this claim, the jury is still out on a final ruling. With the human genome project now complete, it should only be a matter of time before a homosexual gene, if it exists, is found. Should a gene be found that really does cause a person to be homosexual, or at least have a proclivity towards that behavior, perhaps the parents of an unborn child found with this gene would elect to abort him or her.

Oh, I can hear the outcry now of militant homosexuals to that course of action. "It's genocide against homosexuals [only they would use the asinine term 'gays']! We're being persecuted for who we are!" I would have to say to them, "No, we now have the knowledge that homosexuality is indeed a birth defect, no different than spina bifida or Down syndrome, and we can begin to eradicate it from the population. If you don't like it, perhaps you should join with the Christian right, if they'll have you, in an [unholy] alliance against abortion." What a hoot THAT would be.

But what if homosexuality is a choice and not genetic? The human mind is the most complex piece of machinery in the universe; who knows what subtle and not-so-subtle influences it is exposed to cause it to choose certain paths, especially in a young, developing mind. Just to reiterate, I am not for persecution of homosexuals, but neither am I for the promotion of it as just another lifestyle (deathstyle, as some wag once said, is closer to the truth). If adult folks choose to be that way, that's their business, but I will never consider it natural, nor will I ever teach my child that it is anything but an aberration.

In the end, this debate on what causes homosexuality really is pointless. As I laid out above, whatever its cause(s), homosexuality is anti-life, and that's reason enough to oppose it as wrong.

Take care.

DAL357

Surviving survivalism

A Google search for survival sites and blogs, and a quick perusal of some of the hits found, is enough to make one think it's all too much to bother with, and that would be a shame. Much of the information is well intentioned, but it's written for others of like mind. The average Joe who has other interests in life than preparing for a total, irreversible societal meltdown will find most of the information not only over-the-top, but also overwhelming.

The reason for this is that practically every survivalist is seemingly looking to prepare for a complete societal collapse. In this scenario, only the strong and prepared survive and the rest get to fight each other over the scraps, a fate they deserve because they weren't prescient enough to lay in the necessities of life. Yes, this can happen in certain areas under extremely rare circumstances (Hurrican Katrina comes to mind), but there are two things to keep in mind: it's not happening everywhere at once, and it's temporary. A person, a family, or a group may have to be prepared to help themselves for a few days in a row, maybe even 2 to 3 weeks in succession, but having month upon month of supplies stocked away seems to be overkill, unless one plans on feeding his unprepared neighbors, which brings me to my next point.

Based on what I've learned from the various plights of others, the most successful survivors did not try to go it alone. They banded together with their neighbors and worked in concert to survive. They pooled resources, including knowledge and skills, and made the best of a bad situation. Show me a person who thinks they can do it all in the face of a natural or man-made catastrophe and I'll show you a person who has watched too many Hollywood fantasies and read too many TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) books.

Now, does the above mean I think survivalists are all wet? Not at all. Like everything else in life, one needs to adapt broad information to their own situation. The point where I and most survivalists part company is in the depth and detail of preparation and, as indicated above, in the siege-mentality mindset. What follows are MY guidelines on the basic needs in case of disaster. One should plan on having enough of these items for 2 to 4 weeks.

1. Food: mostly canned goods that can be eaten cold if need be


2. Water


3. Medications


4. Sanitary items: toilet paper, soap, wet wipes, toothbrush


5. Alternative cooking source: fireplace, camp stove, barbecue grill


6. Alternative light source: candles, flashlights, lanterns


7. Battery-powered radio


8. Alternative heat source: fireplace, a tent heater that can be safely used indoors, etc.


9. Diversions: a deck of cards, books, a journal, etc.


10. Firearm(s): a shotgun is king here, as evidenced by the Hurricane Katrina stories I've read, closely followed by a handgun

Many of these items you may already own; others you may have to acquire. The best way to stock up on the consumables you might need is a little at a time. Each time you go shopping, throw a few extras into your basket and put them into the basement or a closet. In short order, you'll have what you and yours need.

One area where I think survivalists go WAY overboard is in the area of firearms and ammunition. No, I can't tell you what type, how many you'll need, or how much ammo you should store, but I can make an educated guess. Some survival websites sound as if they are preparing for an onslaught of wave after wave of flesh-eating zombies, and advise that thousands of rounds of ammunition should be on hand for umpteen firearms. Look, if you've got that many people trying to get to you who aren't deterred by a few rounds fired in their direction, having enough ammo and guns for a platoon isn't likely to help you. Having a shotgun or two, and maybe a handgun or two as backup, as well as 100 rounds for each, is all you are ever likely to need for the amount of time you're going to be in dire straits. Learn how to use these tools and you'll be well served in case TSHTF (The Sh** Hits The Fan) and you have to provide for your and your neighbor's security because social order has been tempoararily interrupted.

I guess that's about it for this subject. Being prepared for the unexpected, within reason, does not mark one as paranoid, but as a wise person who knows things don't always go as wished. Hey, you're not expecting a fire, but you have a fire extinguisher in your house, right? The same type of thinking goes for that spare tire you're carrying in your car (as opposed to the one around your waist). Don't completely blow off what survivalists say; they do have some good points. But don't worry if you don't have a cabin in the hills, an AR-15- or AK-47-type rifle, a generator, and several thousand dollars worth of MREs. The few preps I outlined on my list will see you through practically any temporary crises this country will ever face.

Take care.
DAL357

Rapid movie review: Babel

I watched the 2006 movie Babel a few days ago after checking it out from the local library. While it's not anything great, it is a flick with a solid story told in an interesting way. I'm not going to give a synopsis here, you can look up the movie on the 'Net and find out about it, but I will give it my recommendation, and that should be all the impetus you need to secure and watch it yourself. Not that my opinion is all that (except to me), but those of you who know me know how little I think of most offerings from Hollywood.

Take care.

DAL357

The unintellectual approach to crime control

The link below is to a piece by ABC's 20/20 reporter John Stossel about the futility of trying to control crime by controlling access to guns by law-abiding folks.

It boggles my mind that there are still otherwise intelligent people out there who insist that no one but the police should have guns. Look, I wish we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya and progress as a species towards a better tomorrow, but that ain't the real world. Times occur in life, thankfully realtively rare, when a person minding their own beeswax has their space intruded upon by one or more bad guys intent upon doing evil. If a cop happens to be within shouting distance, great, hail them over and let them take care of the situation. Just in case one isn't immediately available, however, the impending victim had better have a way of defending/extracating him/herself from the scenario. A firearm in capable, i.e. trained, hands is THE best way of protecting oneself when criminals come calling. It's a force multiplier that puts a lone or weaker individual on a more equal footing with what's likely to be one, or more, younger, stronger thugs.

One part of the video I'd like you to pay particular attention to is when it's stated that many of the horrific incidents of mass murder we've witnessed have been in so-called "gun-free zones." I guess the murderers that operated at will in those zones for many crucial minutes before help arrived--help being good people with, get this, guns(!)--must have missed the admonishment to enter sans firearms. Or maybe they chose that particular place because they knew they'd have many defenseless victims and no armed opposition. Somehow, I believe the latter scenario is the more likely.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Here's a somewhat humorous sketch illustrating why criminals love gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kUD6W8QaQ

Finally, the following link depicts, via outright absurdity, the pipe dream of controlling crime through gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

Take care.
DAL357

Monopolies bite, or, another shot fired over the bow of the Medical Industrial Complex

For some time I have been intending to write a post about the sky-high price of dentistry in the United States, and here's the article that finally pushed me to do it.

*****
Americans go to Mexico for a cheaper perfect smile
By Robin Emmott
Fri Feb 1, 1:43 PM ET

It was fear of the hefty bill as much as fear of the drill that kept American musician Don Clay away from U.S. dental clinics for 30 years.

When a sorely infected tooth eventually drove him to the dentist last month, it was to a clinic in a Mexican border city better known for violent crime and drug cartels.

Shrugging off concerns about hygiene and Mexico's brutal drug war, thousands of Americans are heading to Ciudad Juarez and other Mexican border cities for cheap dental treatment.

"I had to get my teeth fixed. I need a perfect smile to make a successful career in music. Treatment in the United States is so pricey," said Clay, a Texan trying to get a record deal as a hip-hop artist.

U.S. dental treatment costs up to four times as much as in Mexico, making it tough for uninsured Americans to treat common problems such as abscessed teeth or pay for dentures.

A dental crown in the United States costs upward of $600 per tooth, compared to $190 or less in Mexico.

Aspiring Mexican dentists are moving to border cities in droves and are luring American patients away from farther flung discount destinations such as Hungary and Thailand.

Americans have long crossed the border for cheap medicines, flu vaccines, eye surgery or specialist doctors, but dentists are now in highest demand.

Dental clinics are on almost every block in central Ciudad Juarez, ranging from dingy dives to clinics that look more like posh hair salons. Getting there involves dodging prostitutes, drug pushers and cowboy-boot sellers.

BARGAIN-HUNTING
"We've gone from a handful of patients when we started 2-1/2 years ago to 150 new patients a month," said Joe Andel, an American who owns the Rio Dental clinic in Ciudad Juarez with his Mexican dentist wife, Jessica.

Rio Dental, which uses U.S. labs to make its crowns, picks patients up at the airport in El Paso, Texas, across the border and has treated people from as far away as Alaska and Hawaii.

"The Internet makes this possible. It allows patients to find us and research us and shows we can do dental work of equal or superior quality to the United States," Andel said.

Internet bloggers swap stories and compare notes about Mexican dentists, but it always comes down to money.

Dentistry in the United States has become prohibitively expensive for some patients, with bills that can run to tens of thousands of dollars. Malpractice insurance premiums, operating costs that are much higher than in Mexico and dentists seeking to claw back the rising cost of their tuition all weigh.

Even among Americans who have medical insurance, many find they are not covered for treatment other than the basics, and paying on credit means high interest payments.

"I did $4,000 of dental work in the United States and put it on my credit card. Because of the interest, I only paid off $400 in three years," said a U.S. teacher from New Mexico getting treatment in Ciudad Juarez who gave his name as Bill.

Cosmetic dentistry, which insurers do not cover and which can be paid in dollars in many Mexican border clinics, is also popular, Ciudad Juarez dentist Luis Garza said.

"If you want a perfect smile, you have to pay for it, and we can do it cheaper, that's all," he grinned.
(Editing by Catherine Bremer and Eric Beech)
Copyright © 2008 Reuters
*****

If you are a U.S. dentist, this could be bad news. If you are a U.S. dental patient, this is definitely good news.

Of course I'm going to explain why, silly.

For decades and decades, dental-care providers in the United States have had a monopoly on the market. Now, there are two different types of monopolies in a free market: natural and man-made. Natural monopolies occur in areas where competition can't start and develop because of physical or current technology limitations. Examples of natural monopolies include utility companies and, at one time, the phone company and cable television. Man-made monopolies are those that depend upon some type of force or coercian to keep out competition. In a free market, the only way a monopoly can exist for any length of time without having competition is through government intervention OR by being so efficient and innovative that other companies can't compete because they are unable to bring the same or similar product to market at a competitive price. This last is the only example of a good man-made monopoly, and the minute this man-made monopoly starts to rest on its laurels, a competitor will appear to exploit its laxity.

So, what does this have to do with dentists? Read on, please.

Like any industry, the dental profession seeks to maximize its profits. According to my Internet research, there are 56 ADA (American Dental Association) accredited dental schools in the U.S., and the competition to enter them is fierce, with only students possessing the best-of-the-best academic records even considered. There is nothing wrong with this. Any group should be allowed to set its professional standards at whatever level it considers appropriate. The ADA sets its standards so high to ostensibly produce only the best dentists, but it really does so to keep the pool of available dentist fairly static so as to maintain a high income for dentists. In 2004, there were 175,705 active dentists in the United States, and of that number the average income for a general practitioner was $185, 940, and $315,160 for a specialist.

If these incomes were the result of healthy competition in the marketplace, I'd be all for them and more. The problem is, they aren't the result of any type of competition at all. They are a result of a man-made monopoly aided and abetted by the Unitied States government, which allows the ADA to be the sole body to decide what constitutes necessary dental training and standards. No alternate, competing body is seriously considered or recognized. The U.S. government uses its muscle, based on standards promulgated by the ADA, to stifle alternative forms of treatment and/or accreditation, without a care for the real victims of this monopoly, the dental consumer. Naturally, as consumers faced outrageous dental prices, they began to look for a cheaper alternative. As the article above shows, they found one. Good for them. No doubt you'll hear many stories of unclean dental practices performed by Mexican dentists (unclean practices happen in the U.S. too). Some of these will likely be true. What you won't hear of are the thousand of successful procedures performed at a fraction of the monopoly-inflated U.S. price; that would be bad for the U.S. dental business.

I am not anti-dentist. Dentists perform a vital service for their patients. What I am against is, as if you couldn't guess already, the artificial shortage of dentists created by the ADA monopoly on standards and practices with the willing assistance of the U.S. government. As long as this continues, Americans will be forced through sheer economic necessity to seek out less-costly options to get their needed dental care.

Take care.
DAL357