These ridiculous debates… what do they actually think they are tricking people into seeing or believing? None of these charlatans actually say anything with meaning. They dance around with words trying to say as little as possible.

The clumsy ninjas of deliberate vagueness.

The entire game has evolved into a contest to see who can make the voters hate them the least. Each of them posturing to say what they think voters need. Each equally afraid to indicate any semblance of reducing GovCo. handouts to the mass of entitlement monkeys this country has become.

We’ve regressed to the point where the former bastion of individual liberty and economic prosperity, America, determines who’s at the helm by a facaduous pageant of corruption.

As long as we’re stuck in this socialist plurality of vote buyers referred to as the “two-party system”, I refuse to play their sick little game. On one side you’ve got slick-talking, collectivist panderers whose continual ignorance and trampling of the constitution has lost even its comic appeal. On the other, you’ve those who blatantly regard as rights, what are really plunderously cultivated assaults on other individuals. Which side is which? One side sees no problem with forking out tax dollars to companies, the other gives freely to individuals. Neither is supported constitutionally. Both sides nitpick the other about “reforms” for this entitlement program, or “revisions” to this encroachment on property rights - arguing about the color of shingles for a house that should never have been built. There isn’t a single candidate on either side who’s not a mixed economy advocate.

Other than the ‘R’ and the ‘D’ beside their names they’re virtually indistinguishable. ‘Socialism Lite’ and ‘Socialism Low-Carb’… either way, we lose.

Unfortunately, I allowed myself to endure 10 of the abhorrent 60 Minutes broadcast last night. The segment was on the NY “Health Commissioner” Thomas Frieden’s crusade to further trample property rights by forcing restaurants who provide publicly visible menu boards to also display caloric content of their menu items. The “official” reason for singling out chains is that most, if not all of these companies have already done the research into their caloric offerings and have them published either on websites or posters. I suspect the real reason that in general, the demographics of chain restaurant customers correlate with lower-income, potentially obese segments of the population - you know, the serfs that need the most nanny-state coddling. I’d also guess that big-wig bureaucrats are also less likely to frequent these chains and thus would not be subject to the price increases that would result from a mandated expenditure.

Frieden is the same thug who’s spearheaded both the smoking and trans-fat bans in NY. This is just the next step in his efforts to “protect” consumers.

Unsurprisingly, the philosophic diffusion of this ridiculous mandate - that GovCo. has no right to meddle in the affairs of a private entity - was never even hinted at. Also, predictably absent is any discussion of the fact that a consumer can simply decide not to eat from a venue that doesn’t adequately inform him of the nutritional info of their menu. Or, the free market concept that if one chain voluntarily did this as a selling point, the market would drive others to follow suit if consumers actually found value in it.

During one interview, the CBS automaton Lesley Stahl, accusingly asked a selected PR fluffer from Wendy’s “Aren’t you truly afraid that by listing the calories you’re going to lose money?” This would’ve been an opportune time to quickly dismantle the interrogation, but obviously Wendy’s would never want to be perceived as caring more about their bottom line than the “public interest” - so the accusation was dishonestly denied.

The entire glob of tripe can be found here:

Why do so many people confuse rights, privileges, and conscription?

A right is a certain course of behavior that is sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with. There are rights that are inalienable, meaning they are inherent to life itself, fundamental and not granted or awarded by human means. There are also alienable rights, which are granted by men, and in the case of the United States (most of the time) protected by governing sanction.

There’s really only one truly inalienable right - the right to life - which means the freedom to take measures required to support the continuance of ones existence. There’s one key caveat - one doesn’t encroach on the same right of another individual (response to force is the exception).

The right to property is the only implementation of the primary right to life. Without the right to maintain ownership of the product of ones existence an individual can’t really sustain his life. That’s it. That’s the only inalienable ‘right’ we have.

There are also rights that which are not inalienable, however are key to a free society. The commonly cited rights to free speech, bear arms and to due process of law are among those in the Bill of Rights which are crucial to our country.

A privilege, conversely is an entitlement that requires the voluntary commission of others. Anything that requires the consensual sacrifice of value from another individual is a privilege.

Thirdly, Conscription is involuntary servitude demanded for one party for another by a tertiary authority. For example, using unconstitutional government authority to mandate individuals with medical expertise to render services without granting them the authority to determine compensation is conscription. Using unconstitutional government authority to force one individual to compensate another individual for services (either in part or in full ) supplied for a third party is also conscription… also know as ‘Socialized Medicine’, or the more slyly crafted phrase - ‘Universal Health-care’.

If someone claims that health care is a right, I would ask ‘based on what justification?’ It’s certainly not an inalienable one. For one to have a right to receive medical expertise, another individual would be required to apply such expertise. So, if it by definition isn’t inalienable, it must a right granted by man. Where do we get it from? Where does man grant me the right to have another individual maintain my life? I’ve never seen it granted in any legal document pertaining to the founding of our country.

What is their basis for that claim?

Health care (maintenance of life) is certainly by definition not a right. At best case, when it exists in a free-market, it’s a privilege. A privilege that involves another individuals expertise in anatomy, biology and medicine plus one other thing, their consent to provide their expertise in exchange for compensation that they see fit.

That’s how many we’d *need* if everyone lived like me. However, with altruism and barbaric faith being the prominent philosophical guidelines across the globe, I don’t think we have anything to worry about. In other words, while I wouldn’t consider myself wealthy, I maintain a quality of life that requires the denial of the destructive mindsets listed above.

So, onward my fellow greedy Americans! Let’s keep those carbon footprints growing!

Once again, life is all about trade-offs - adhering to the environmental mindset in exchange for comfort, prosperity, security and freedom are not ones I’m willing to make..

I wanted to harvest and document all my thoughts on this non-issue but I found someone else who’s done much better than I could…

http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html

In addition to Jason’s insight I would only add my thoughts (which apply to most scenarios where someone is offended) : If you’ve taken offense to something said, you chose to do so. If it *really* applies to you, then it’s merely the truth and being offended means you don’t like reality - change it. If it doesn’t apply to you ignore it and move on.

Being “offended” is meaningless, and is a waste of consciousness.

I have a new appreciation for something that I used to despise. I hated the smoky haze of restaurants and bars. I’d always dreaded the lingering artifacts of the dining experience on my clothes. “I wish they wouldn’t smoke in here”, I’d mutter, every time I walked near the smoking section. I’d think how great it would be for the owners of the restaurant to not allow smoking.

If the owner of an establishment decided that rule, it’d be perfectly fine. That’s the way it should work in a supposedly “free” market of a supposedly “free” country. Right?

Apparently not. Charlotte, NC is trying to follow the hideous trend of “banning” smoking in bars and restaurants.
Their justification for this sickening encroachment on property rights is that second-hand smoke (”SHS”) is detrimental to the health of non-smokers.

Hey GovCo… IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

While the degree of detriment is debatable, the voluntary participation of the customer in this barter trumps any SHS infliction. To avoid any risks, don’t go in the building. Seems pretty simple to me.

This issue, like just about all “problems” that our Imperial Federal Government thinks it needs to “fix” is best left up to the market for a resolution.

From the patron’s perspective, every time a person walks into a restaurant, they make a decision to either subject themselves to any second-hand smoke in environment or leave. When or if enough people make the decision to leave, and the demand for a smoke-free dining experience is apparent, the market will respond.

From the business owners perspective, If an individual works their way into an ownership position of an establishment, they set the rules. It’s their work that earned them the position. Their investment of time, energy and money was on the line. It’s their family that suffers if business is bad. It’s them who instead of being able to focus on growing their business, is forced to withstand our insidious tax code; dedicating precious scarce resources to the cause of feeding a wasteful government its “fair share” every three months. You’d think as long as one feeds the beast appropriately, they’d at least earn the right to run a business as they see fit. It’s their business to run.

I now embrace the smell of cigarette smoke in restaurants. It represents a time when our country was one step closer in resemblance to what the founders intended. Once again, I’m drawn back to my favorite quote: “I’d rather perish in justice than prosper under imperialism”. Indeed, I’d rather die of lung cancer due to SHS in a truly free, capitalistic nation than be healthy in a socialistic one.

The American government has dropped its loyalty and adherence to the Enlightenment’s unyielding principles (reason, rule of law, inalienable individual rights, freedom, capitalism). This country is dominated by a cancer of politicians who are morally and philosophically bankrupt. Hang on, it’s going to be a rough ride.

There are others who feel the same way.

Status:
In Transit -
On Time

Scheduled Delivery:
09/07/2006
Shipped to:
CHARLOTTE, NC, US
Shipped or Billed on:
09/01/2006

Tracking Number:
1Z 136 43W 03 6258 228 7

Service Type:
GROUND

Weight:
4.30 Lbs

Note:
Your package is in the UPS system and is on time with a scheduled delivery date of 09/07/2006.

Package Progress:

Earl: “Hey, anyone heard of Megan Lynch?”
Lester: “No, who is she?”
Earl: “She’s this incredible fiddle player with 3 Fox Drive.. I’ve heard one of their shows on bluegrassbox and bought their disk. They are a great band!!”
Josh: “Alright then, I’ll definitely check her and the band out.”

The essence of the above dialogue has been a common theme for me throughout the past 4 years since my introduction to bluegrassbox.com. A website that’s an invaluable source for live bluegrass and acoustic music.

Megan Lynch of 3 Fox Drive posted on thebluegrassblog.com regarding live show taping and trading networks. While she did raise valid points regarding stealth taping of artists who’d prefer not to be taped, I question a few of her other premises.

Her first notion mentions the hardships of a musician’s life. The traveling, demanding schedules etc. are undeniably rigorous. As an individual who’s seen day to day life from both sides (albeit briefly) of the fence I feel little sympathy for her. Being a musician is a choice. A choice that comes with trade-offs. Some of those tradeoffs being the elements of a musician’s life that she mentioned. Every occupation features tradeoffs. It can be tough. Being a lawyer is tough. Collecting garbage is tough. Sitting in a cubical for 8-10 hours a day with fiddle tunes going through your head is tough. There are times where I would drive home an hour each way just to be able to pick for 15 minutes at lunch. Sure, I’d rather be playing music for a living, but paying my mortgage each month is a nice thing. For many years, I’ve chosen that tradeoff. Life is all about trade-offs. She enjoys the mental fulfillment of living in a musical realm. Her hard work and sacrifice have put her in the position to choose that lifestyle but every benefit has a cost.
The trials of a life on the road in no way constitute a valid argument against recording (with permission) and trading (legally) live music.

Her next statement is arguable…

“So it’s fine if someone records the whole show, uploads it to a site for everyone to have, no cost. And what a bonus if the band plays a bunch of songs from the new album. Whew! That saves $15 bucks!”

Most live shows that I’ve listened to (that were worth listening to) have always served to benefit the artist. Either I sought out the show because I’d already owned the album and wanted to hear the material in a live setting (most likely reinforcing my support for them) or I’d never heard the artist and purchased their disc solely because I was exposed to them in a live setting. Over the past year, I’ve purchased 6 different projects solely based on a live recording from bluegrassbox.com.

There will be exceptions of course.

The same folks who constitute the exceptions are the ones who also pirate compact discs like there’s no tomorrow and have a general lack of respect for intellectual property rights.

The economic immorality (theft) of the taping community minority is the real issue, not the concept of taping/trading and its facilitators.

Additionally, I like the idea of allowing individuals to preview a band in a live setting. If the show is quality and the talent is entertaining, the superior audio quality of a studio recording should be enough to earn an album sale. In general, most fans of the bluegrass genre want to support artists that they value. It’s no secret that being an acoustic musician can be tough financially. I know many artists (as well as myself) would much prefer a customer be happy with their purchase of our music than for them to feel like they wasted 15 bucks. In my opinion, If letting them hear me live would increase the odds of making a sale and a happy customer, then I’m better off long term.

Now, I do wholeheartedly agree with Megan that if she’s performing and she’d prefer not to be taped/traded then she has the absolute right to voice that wish and have it unquestionably granted.

Overall, I think taping/trading (done legally) is very positive for acoustic music. To slam the trade and the underlying infrastructure because some tapers acquire their music without permission is the equivalent of questioning the legitimacy of cable companies because some individuals steal cable.

As a follow up to my first post on this topic, I offer one possible explanation for the blatantly annoying voicemail instruction prompts.

Minutes.

The longer you wait to leave a message, the more minutes you are using. I cannot wait for the market to fix this service issue.

Music is about tradeoffs. Time, money, relationships, physical fitness come to mind. All of these are things I’ve sacrificed for music. All are valuable but worth the trade to a certain degree. Every moment that I spend thinking, listening or practicing music I sacrifice some other element of my life. Every day that I get up and continue to pursue musical endeavors I evaluate the tradeoffs and proceed accordingly.

There is one thing that’s been lost in the past 10 years where I feel like I don’t have a choice in the matter. Something that I sometimes wish I could recover - the ability to just listen to music. To be able to listen and just enjoy without mental analysis… To listen without hearing notes out of tune & shifts in timing.

It’s virtually impossible for me to enjoy music at a non-analytical level now. I can’t just digest a melody, harmony and all accompaniment as a whole without parsing. I constantly decipher intervals, phrases and licks as if I’m on constant patrol for the introduction of a new string of notes or timing.

Critical listening definitely enhances my enjoyment of music sometimes but there are times where I’d do anything to just be able to turn off the musician part of my head and just listen to music as if I’d never touched an instrument.