Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention as an "outsider" candidate, and in fact, even here at Slashdot I've seen a lot of Ron Paul in sigs.

So I decided to visit his web site and see what he's all about. Uhhhhhh... why is this guy getting so much geek attention? I can only assume that people are focusing on some single issue, and haven't checked what the guy actually *believes*. Much like people who support the Libertarian Party, actually, who have some seriously crackpot stuff in their platform. But I digress.

What's wrong with Ron Paul? Here's a sampling:

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. [...] And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever." link

Sheesh. Sure, the value of trade deals is debatable, but the rhetoric above is just silly. "Gone FOREVER" OH NOOOOO!! Typical Politician fear-mongering, if not out-and-out crackpottery. So far, I'm not impressed.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA's legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements. link

Oh, geez. The FDA is certainly not perfect, but to say that the FDA "consistently" fails to protect the public from dangerous drugs is just a lie. If it wasn't for the FDA, we would be flooded with quack drugs. The Libertarian would say that the consumer should decide what's good and what's bad, but it's impractical for every citizen to have to review all the studies to know whether the thousands of drugs are effective or not. Again, I'll listen to how the FDA can be improved, but overblown words like the above don't give me confidence that there's any substance to the man.

And then, to top it off, he attacks *all* genetically modified foods broadly, showing that he has an anti-science agenda, and is completely ignorant of the issue.

I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment. [...] I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. link

I'm a supporter of home schooling, but let me get this straight. He wants home-schooled kids to have equal parity for diplomas, equal consideration for scholarships, yet doesn't think they should be be tested to see if they learned anything?? How is that supposed to work? And is the government going to force universities to accept home schooled kids with no testing?

The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. link

First of all, he's being disingenuous here. Nowhere are children "banned" from praying in school. What is banned is the SCHOOL leading prayer. That he doesn't seem to understand this (or is lying about it) is incredibly worrisome.

And then he doesn't seem to understand that freedom of religion means the government cannot advocate one religion over another, and in fact, should not be advocating religion at all. I don't feel like quoting more, but he then goes on to attack the idea of the separation of church and state. I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to be a big advocate of atheist rights.

This isn't everything I find disturbing. To be fair, I did see a lot I liked about the man (as I can say about any of the candidates, of any party). But as near as I can see, he is not deserving of the reputation that he seems to be building.

Can anyone tell me why they support Ron Paul, especially in light of the above?

Disclaimer: I'm not a Libertarian, though I'm sympathetic to *some* of their ideas. A lot of them are crackpot, though.

Universal health care has been traditionally an idea that Libertarians despise, because it's directly against the Libertarian ideal of personal responsibility, and not "stealing" from others to support oneself. In this small essay, I'm going to argue that Universal Health Care *is* necessary to a free Libertarian-style society.

First, let me say that for most of my life, I've been adamantly against Universal Health Care, primarily because I don't trust the governmen not to screw it up. I still believe this, but I've come to believe that UHC is necessary anyway.

The reason is because modern UHC is not directly subject to market forces, hence the reason health care costs are completely out of control in the U.S. The underlying reason is health insurance. Once people stopped paying directly for health care, they stopped caring what it cost. In fact, they had an incentive to get the *most expensive* health care. Why not? "The insurance company is paying for it." And the Doctors certainly have no incentive to keep costs down. Might as well order a few extra tests. The result of this are costs spiralling ever upward.

Now, Libertarian think tanks are aware of this, and their solution was the idea of "medical savings accounts", where people (in essence) get a refund for not using health care. This is a really weak incentive. It helps a little, but it still doesn't address the fundamental corruption of market forces. That this is the best the Libertarians can come up with ought to tell you how impossible it is to fix.

So given that market forces can't work, and in fact people are getting bankrupted every day by health costs, the only solution is really for the government to step in, as inefficient as that can be.

So, even if that's the only solution, why do I say this should be a "Libertarian Ideal"? Let me first start with what most Libertarians think the government *should* do. One of the most fundamental functions of government is to provide a legally level playing field, for example, contract law. Most (hopefully all, but you never know) Libertarians wouldn't argue that contract judges should be privatized. There needs to be a relatively fair legal environment for business.

So how does UHC fit into this? One of the fundamental tenants of Libertarianism is the idea of personal responsibility, that in the end, one should take care of oneself through hard work.

And that's the crux: someone *can't* take care of oneself if they are not physically capable of it. It's unreasonable to say to someone, "I realize that your leg is broken, so work harder so you'll have the money to fix your leg." People cannot be productive without being physically healthy, just like people can't be productive without a reasonable legal environment.

Note that health care is different from other items, say, food. If I'm hungry, it's *is* reasonable to say, "go out and work, so you can afford to buy food." Physical health is a very different idea. It can actually *prevent* the Libertarian ideal of working to support oneself.

So, just like a stable legal system is necessary for a healthy capitalistic society, so is a healthy workforce capable of working to support themselves.

I haven't written here in a while. For the most part I'm writing in my Blog.
I graduated from the Berklee College of Music last year (2006).
I am now working as office manager for Jazkarta, a Plone consulting firm based in Cambridge MA. It's a great job and I'm really enjoying it. We are located in the Betahouse, a loft style shared office space that has been featured in the Boston Globe recently.
Well, that's all for now.

Well, not really a conspiracy.

Continuing my recent habit of posting a journal entry every two years or so, I thought I'd share my experience with aspartame-induced headaches.

For a few years, I've been having on-and-off chronic headaches. They felt right behind my eyes, and I seemed to also be somewhat sensitive to bright lights. Sometimes it would be a dull throb, but every so often I get real ball-busters that lasted for over a day that meds just didn't make go away. I pretty much attributed it to getting older. It was annoying, but not life threatening.

Now, I'd heard a lot about aspartame conspiracies, and like most conspiracies, I figured it was all a bunch of crap, along the same lines as "multiple chemical sensitivity" and the like (no offense to people with legitimate allergies).

One day, I was reading along, and I saw a post (it may even have been on Slashdot) where someone said they had been having chronic headaches for a long time that went away when they stopped drinking Aspartame. The guy didn't seem like a looney, so I thought it was worth a try. Anything to get rid of them!

I started drinking water every day, rather than my usual diet sodas. Within a week, there was a noticeable drop in the incidence of headaches, and NO occurances of bad headaches. After a month, I had had only a few incidences of headaches, and still NO bad ones, which was pretty much unprecedented. It's been probably six months now, and my headache problem is pretty much gone. I still get headaches occasionally, but it's a much more normal rate, and not nearly the severity. Still haven't had a ball-buster since I stopped drinking it.

Now, I'm still not an Aspartame looney who wants it banned. Some people go into anaphylactic shock with peanuts, that doesn't mean we should ban peanuts. It just happens to have that effect on me, and doesn't for millions of other people. But it should be common knowledge that it CAN happen to certain people.

Oh, and I don't think it was caffeine that was doing it. I drank a couple of diet cokes a day, but mostly I drank diet Sprite specifically because I don't like a lot of caffeine. My caffeine intake is pretty much zero now, but I've been drinking caffeine for a long time (a LOT back in my 20s) and I never got headaches from it.

If you're having chronic headaches and drink a lot of diet soda like I did, it's worth a try to see if you have the same effect. And I used to pretty hate drinking water, but I got used to it, so I'm okay with it now.

Speaking of water, I also don't buy into the silly "water is better for you anyway" nonsense. Liquid is liquid, your body uses it the same way. And by the way, that "Eight 8-oz glasses of water a day" thing is totally wrong as well, but that's another journal entry (there is ZERO evidence that drinking more water leads to more health).

clicky

http://www.gigstaggart.com/blog/

I'll probably be writing there more than here.

Ron Paul is in the race for president in 2008. Lets make sure that someone who believes in liberty is on the ballot. I gave $50. I only wish I could afford to give the maximum.

You may not agree with every position Ron Paul has, but he's the most libertarian republican I've ever seen. If he runs I'll vote for him even if the big-L Libertarian Party runs someone else. I'd hope they would be realistic and not run anyone if Ron Paul winds up being the Republican nominee. There's no need to divide the vote for liberty when Ron Paul is a very strong candidate.

https://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

Sorry to all the nay-sayers, but I pretty confident now that multiply isn't going away. I already find myself going to that page before slashdot. I'd suggest picking it up, just so you have an ID there and are associated with it in case we don't come back.

Here's me as a starting person to be joined to. Make sure you give me you /. id when you join, though.

FYI - I've requested to the site a way to grab /. historical journal entries, and they are considering it (they already have this feature for blogger, blogspot, etc...). I'd also like to see cross-posting for those too stubborn to leave...

After serious consideration, I'm probably going to move to multiply, myself. My id was created a couple days ago (same ID as here), but I think I'll actually move journals over to it.

Most people that aren't on ask "what's so sexy about it"? The answer is it does everything we do here, plus a lot more (pictures, music, etc... but not terrible like myspace). The things its missing? The front page.
Now most people feel like there will be no more growth in the /. circle, which I feel is incorrect. The growth will be probably the same, but the reason will be different.
Right now, growth comes from a new slashdot id that stumbles onto us. We have lots in common, cause, most likely, the new person is a geek like the rest of us.
In Multiply, the new friends will come from other friends friends (follow that?). Basically, I'll become a friend of one of blinder's friends. Since blinder and I have a lot in common, his friend will, most likely, be compatable with me, also, so then the circle grows. Its just as open ended as the growth we have here, even more so, especially in the beginning.

I'd suggest everyone getting an ID, and start friending everyone up. I'd also suggest setting up your messages to only get the 'daily' email, not new emails for every little thing (as that is annoying as hell). Maybe do a weekly thing, who knows. Anyway, I'll still be around here, but probably not many more journals (especially since my journals have fallen off)...
Oh, and its easy to keep in touch with those that DON'T move there, as you can setup an RFF feed for your friends' journals here...

I got another ass kicking last night. Did legs and partially back. The leg squats really kciked my ass (on the hammer-strength machine, 3 sets of 12 forward, and 3 sets backward). Calves and hammys I did well on (especially calves). Then we started on my back. While working on my lats, I started getting light headed... stomach started to ache. I had to constantly take breaks. The PT asked what was wrong, and I told him the light headedness. He asked when I last ate (this was at 5pm), I told him lunch at 11:30. That's when he said "Don't move, I'll be right back"... within a minute, I was on the floor barely concious. Another PT was keeping me awake until my guy returns with a shake. I was seconds away from passing out. So a lesson to learn, here:
Always have a snack before going to the gym! (Yes indeedy! I'm a stupid idiot!)

Anywho, the bicep sprain wasn't a sprain or a strain, just a really sore muscle. We worked it out and its fine today. I must be favoring the right side too much when working on my arms...

Yesterday I went in and told the PT that initially put me on a workout that I want to ramp it up. He asked if I want to get 'big'.
Sure.
Ok then...

And then... he proceeded to fully kick my scrawny little ass. Spent an hour just on biceps, chest, and abs (lots of 'hammer strength' machines, which are machines with freeweights on it that NFL/pro athletes use, then lots of freewieghts. The only 'simple machines' we used was for me to work on my biceps one at a time). I was in agony. He set goals on what I was to do. Then he told me to lay off all the cardio. I do 30 minute cardio on Sun, Tues, Weds when I'm lifting, and 60 on MWF when I'm not. I'm supposed to do 60 minutes a week, and that's it. Plus the way he's working me out, I may not be ready to go at a muscle group after 45, so I'm supposed to work out a muscle group until I fail (then I know I've worked it to the max), and pick another muscle group the next day.
Monday we work on quads, hammys, calves, and tris. The triceps should be the only ones that give me a ton of trouble, as I used to run track in high school, and still have pretty large legs...

I've been good about going to the gym (except for when I was sick). I lift on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursday, then spend M-W-F on cardio (I still do cardio on the days I lift, just not as much). I leave work at 4:30 and avoid the rush at the gym (though its starting to taper now that people are quitting their New Years resolutions). I'm finding it difficult to keep my heart in the cardio zone on the treadmill. I have to actually work to keep my heart pumping for 45-60 minutes a day. Holy hell, I'm actually somewhat in shape! I actually requested to take the whole family out grocery shopping right after my workout, cause I had trouble settling down and relax. I ended up wearing everyone else out, but I still had energy to burn...
I don't LOOK any stronger, but I definitely FEEL it. My abs are starting to show, much to the wife's delight (though I think she's waiting for my biceps to increase in size), which I haven't had since early college. Unfortunately, seeing them come through, I've been overworking them a bit...
When I ran track back in college, I always had issues with my calves. They used to call me popeye on track, because my calves were always larger than my quads/thighs. At night, I'd always wake up multiple times cause of muscle cramps in my calves... I'd spend a good 15 minutes working out the cramp to get back to bed. Last night I actually work up with muscles cramps in my abs. Talk about uncomfortable.

Anywho, I'm still on it and starting to feel the effects. When I have washboard abs, a descent chest and some guns, I'll post pics ;)

Last weekend, when I was watching TV, Jenna walks into the room, sees the tube and yells "FOOTBALL GAME!"

Today, I was explaining to my wife how I've waited for today's games, and I intend on lounging and watching both of them, when Jenna walks in. "Want to watch football with daddy, today?" "Mmkay!"
She held my hand to lead her to the TV. Had to convince her to go get her favorite shoes to distract her...

So... I'm raising a tomboy, which is fine by me. Either that or she is ugly for the next 16 years. I don't want to have to deal with boys when she gets old enough. I simply don't have enough guns to clean...

... is Mike Tomlin??
I'm reserved about this. Its still considered 'gossip' as no team officials have come forward (including anonymous officials via ESPN). Regardless, the choice has me a little concerned. Tomlin is a big believer in the Tampa-2 coverage scheme. I don't see this working in the AFC north. Funny thing, though, is that the Tampa-2, as Dungy is willing to admit, comes from the defensive scheme of the old 70s Steelers "Steel Curtain" defense. If you have a good enough front for (including 2 HOF'ers), you can put the rest into coverage, and the LBs (including 2 HOF'ers) can handle the run if they do get past the front four...

Regardless, I'm not a big believer in the cover-2, as its suppose to compliment a high powered offense, which the Steelers aren't. Regardless, either big changes are coming, or Tomlin will change his philosophy to be more in line with the Steelers.

Still surprised Grimm didn't get the job, to be honest. Not saying that he's a better candidate (the Rooney's know how to pick coaches!), just seemed like he was a Pittsburgh guy and ready for the job...

Want to go to Chotchkie's? Get some coffee? I gotta get outta here. I think I'm gonna lose it.