Yes, you can slash your health care expenses

Splenda, aka sucralose, aka poison

by Mark Yannone

The company that sells Splenda also sells treatments for some of the many negative symptoms brought about by consuming Splenda. In effect, they sell the snake and the snake bite kit. Sucralose, which can produce crippling headaches and migraines, is even added to children's Tylenol Meltaways! Many organizations behave this way, so pay attention to whom you are supporting with your dollars. One day we'll hear about a recall and a giant class-action lawsuit that will make some law firm giddy with delight.

The sugar replacement that is considered safe is stevia, a noncaloric herb that's native to Paraguay. Stevia is 300 times sweeter than sugar and is sold in this country as a dietary supplement. It is available in most grocery stores and health food stores, as a liquid concentrate and as a powder like Splenda and Equal. (Equal contains aspartame, another dangerous brain poison.)

Fortunately, those who have become addicted to dangerous diet soft drinks now have a safe alternative, Zevia, a line of safe soft drinks that is sweetened with stevia.

Oh, how we adore the Flim Flam Man!

Are You Enjoying the Fake Olympics?

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Are you enjoying watching the fake Olympics? By "fake," of course, I'm referring to all the fabrications that have emerged since the opening of the event. Each day, it seems, brings news of yet another fabrication by China. Here's a short list of the fabrications that have been discovered so far:

• The weather is fake: Beijing is usually a smog pit with air so polluted that city-dwellers there almost never see the sun. To artificially clean up the air and create the image that Beijing is a clean city (it isn't), Chinese officials ordered the shutting down of virtually all manufacturing plants, coal-fired power plants, and automobiles. They've basically shut down Beijing to create the impression that it's a clean city, and when there's still smog, they just call it "mist." (Tony Snow couldn't have spun it better, huh?)

• The free speech is fake: All the freedom protestors who might have spoken out against China during the Olympics have been arrested and imprisoned, thereby creating the impression that there is no public dissent in China. (Need a kidney, anyone? Organs are suddenly available.)

• The opening ceremony was faked: The fireworks displayed during the opening ceremony were faked using pre-programmed computer-generated images. Instead of watching live fireworks, viewers around the world were actually watching 3D computer animation.

• The Internet access is censored: Reporters from around the world have all had their Internet access censored by Chinese authorities, restricting them from accessing Web sites that might be "dangerous" (like sites on religion or meditation).

• The singing was lip-synced by a pretty girl to replace an ugly girl: It turns out the beautiful voice singing the opening song of the ceremony did not belong to the face of the girl who was lip-syncing it. The actual singer, it turns out, was a bit too ugly to represent China, so they faked it and replaced the girl's face with a cuter-looking girl who lip-synced the whole performance. Millie Vanilli, anyone?

• Swimmer Michael Phelps' food is fake: Consuming a whopping 12,000 calories a day, Michael Phelps is a junk food junkie powered by empty calories. While you can get away with that when you're 23 and exercising six hours a day, if Phelps continues his ingestion of fake food beyond his peak training years, he'll soon have REAL diabetes and obesity. Fat makes you float, by the way, so it might actually provide real buoyancy to his swimming career.

• The ages and passports are faked: The Chinese gymnastics team won gold, helped in part by a tiny gymnast who, according to China's own media, was 13 years old just nine months ago. Amazingly, she is now 16 years old, which just happens to be the minimum age to compete in the Olympics. This astonishing acceleration of aging is, of course, fully denied by Chinese authorities who provided forged passports for the girl to "prove" she was really 16. The IOC apparently has no interest in investigating this apparent fraud.

So I hope you're enjoying the fake Olympics. Most of the athletes are real, of course. Their remarkable feats of human artistry, strength, endurance, and athleticism are real, but the whole show surrounding it is fake, fake, fake! It's all a fabricated show to keep the world occupied while your money, your health, and your future are stolen from you by the criminal institutions of the world (governments, corporations, etc.), many of which are actually sponsoring the Olympics.

Much in America is fabricated, too . . .

Now, just in case you think China is the only country engaged in fakery, let me remind you that the United States is just as fake, but in different ways. In the U.S.:

• The war on terrorism is fake: It was all fabricated to keep the population in a state of fear so they wouldn't notice their freedoms being stolen away.

• The mainstream media is fake: The news is largely fabricated or selectively edited to brainwash American consumers into thinking they live in a free country. Corporate press releases are run as "news" and any real news that threatens big advertisers is routinely censored.

• The money supply is fake: The U.S. is running on monetary fumes, borrowing trillions from countries like China that actually have REAL money, all while claiming the national debt doesn't matter anymore. (It does.)

• The housing bubble was fake: As publicly predicted here on NaturalNews nearly two years ago, the housing bubble was fake, creating false wealth that created the impression that the economy was doing well. The whole thing was a charade, of course, and now housing values are plummeting and consumer spending is in a tailspin.

• Health care is fake: There's no "health" in health care, and the entire disease industry in the United States is based on keeping people sick, ignorant, and bankrupt.

• The corporate green movement is fake: Corporations love to act like they're really "green" even as they continue polluting the planet.

• Even the breasts are fake! The U.S. is the plastic surgery capital of the world, where moms are now giving their teenage daughters breast augmentation surgery as a high school graduation present.

It's quite fitting, then, that American viewers who live in a fabricated American reality can watch the fake Olympics by tuning into a fake television network where they can watch a fake opening ceremony that celebrates competition among fraudulent Olympics participants who compete for the only thing that's still real in this global economy: GOLD!
____________

Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a passion for teaching people how to improve their health. He has authored more than 1,500 articles on natural health topics, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving health around the world. Known by his callsign, the "Health Ranger," Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics, and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org.

See also: Beijing Olympics: 'Ethnic' children exposed as fakes in opening ceremony

The invisible infestation must be charming

Hospitals infested with rats, fleas, and bed bugs

by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Telegraph.co.uk

Hygiene standards in NHS hospitals have been called into question after it emerged they are routinely dealing with infestations of vermin.

Outbreaks have included rats in maternity wards, wasps and fleas in neo-natal units, bed bug infestations, flies in operating theatres, and maggots found in patients' slippers.

The data, uncovered using Freedom of Information rules, include hospitals with maggots, "over-run" with ants and mice "all over" wards; cockroaches in a urology unit, and a store for sterile materials infested with mice.

The figures raise questions over standards of cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals although the health care regulator said complaints about pests were "negligible."

The Conservatives asked all 171 hospital trusts in England for details of pest control incidents for the last two years.

Of those, 127 Trusts responded and almost all had experienced problems, and 100 of them collected detailed information about pest infestations.

In total there were almost 20,000 reports of pest problems and 7 out of 10 trusts that responded reported they had called in pest control officers more than 50 times since January 2006 -- an average of once a fortnight [two weeks].

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Hospital Trust, the trust at the center of Britain's biggest superbug scandal when more than 300 patient deaths were linked to Clostridium difficile, reported more than 50 pest incidents in two years.

A spokesman for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust said, "Most incidents relate to old buildings, which have now been demolished at Pembury Hospital. There is no specific problem."

Of the trusts that collected detailed information, 80 percent had problems with ants, 66 percent had rats, 77 percent had mice, 59 percent had problems with cockroaches, 65 percent had biting insects or fleas, 24 percent had problems with bed bugs, and 6 percent had maggots.

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said, "Labor have said over and over again that they will improve cleanliness in our hospitals, but these figures clearly show that they are failing. It is difficult for health service estates to maintain a completely pest-free environment, but the level and variety of these infestations is concerning. We need greater transparency in NHS infection control, and publishing data like this is one way in which we can drive up overall hygiene standards."

Eight hospitals trusts called in pest control officers more than 500 times, with Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust having the most severe problem with 1,070 incidents in two years.

The health care watchdog inspects hospital trusts against a strict hygiene code and has the power to shut down wards, departments, or even a whole hospital if there is a risk to patients.

Christine Braithwaite, head of health care associated infection program at the Healthcare Commission said, "We receive a wide range of information on hygiene from different sources. However, concerns around pest control have, to date, been negligible. Clearly, it may be necessary to take action against pests in these large public buildings from time to time. However, it is important for hospital trusts to have robust procedures in place to deal with any pest problems, and if they persist, trusts should question whether they have the right systems in place. If we were concerned that the safety of patients was at risk, through poor hygiene standards or in any other way, we would take immediate action."

Health Minister Ivan Lewis said, "Hospitals must be responsible for ensuring their buildings are clean and that patient safety is not compromised. The Hygiene Code requires NHS bodies to have a pest control policy that anticipates and manages this issue. Trusts should take rapid action and follow through with surveillance in place to avoid pest incidents and minimize hazards. Use of pest control is a sign of good proactive management. The claim that insects spread hospital acquired infections is entirely unproven. There is no evidence of their carriage of antibiotic resistant bacteria being a hazard to patients. Despite this we expect hospitals to take continued action to tackle pest problems."

Nottingham University Hospital had the most pest control incidents of any that responded to the Conservatives' request for information.

John Simpson, Director of Estates and Facilities Management at Nottingham University Hospitals, said, "These figures must be put into context. It goes without saying that as the fourth largest trust in the country, our hospitals are bigger than most others around the country, and therefore our figures should be compared with trusts with similar-sized estates rather than smaller acute trusts. It is also worth bearing in mind that trusts are likely to have recorded and reported figures differently, and therefore the table may not be comparing like-for-like data."

Source

America's new national sport, with extra cheese

What is the moral justification for nationalized health care, baseball, and kielbasa?

by Craig J. Cantoni

My family and I recently made our annual pilgrimage to a professional baseball game, or to be more accurate, a feedlot. We were surrounded by corpulence that pressed in on us from all sides, making us feel claustrophobic, as if we were going to be smothered by rolls of fat.

The family to our left was so overweight that I kept thinking about nationalized health care instead of concentrating on the game, futilely trying to find a moral and philosophical justification for the obese family wanting to charge others for the medical costs of their gluttony. Maybe you can provide one for me.

First, more about the family: Mom, dad, and junior began feeding during batting practice and continued eating until the game ended, devouring polish sausages, cheese-smothered nachos, popcorn, ice cream, and my wife's purse. Okay, I fibbed about the last one.

The three of them overflowed their seats like dough that overflows an overfilled baking tin. Judging by their clothes, tattoos, and conversation, they were working-class or below. The mother, whose upper arms were larger than my thighs, was on her cell phone for most of the game, munching and talking simultaneously. To compare, my wife, teenage son, and I didn't use our cell phones once, because we share 500 minutes a month and thus have to manage our calls carefully. Even with our frugality, our monthly phone, Internet, and cable TV bills are over $200, with taxes accounting for a big chunk of the cost.

Considering the exorbitant cost of tickets, parking, food, and drinks, the rotund family probably spent $300 at the baseball game. If the nation is reeling from high gas and food prices, the family showed no evidence of it. For that matter, there was no evidence of it anywhere. Judging by the amount of flesh on display at the stadium, Americans could cut their food consumption and costs by 65 percent and still not go hungry.

I use the word "stadium" lightly, for sitting in a modern baseball stadium is like being inside a video game. Lights flash, sound effects blast, a TV screen the size of Indianapolis distracts, and a public-address announcer on amphetamines yells. Still, the incessant sound of munching could be heard over the din, like a plague of locusts devouring crops.

Anyway, back to the moral and philosophical question. My mind went through its file cabinet of philosophers, social justice theories, and negative and positive rights; but could not come up with a moral justification for the fat family eating their way to diabetes and heart disease and then voting for nationalized health care so that the frugal and fit pay their medical bills, thus allowing them to continue spending money on cell phones, baseball games, and kielbasa.

A compelling justification could not be found in the writings of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Herder, Marx, Lenin, Christ, or others. Nor could it be found in the speeches of Barack Obama and other modern-day socialists.

Did I miss something? Is there a moral justification, and if so, what is it?
______________

An author, columnist, and former baseball fan, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

A shortage of affordable medical care? You don't say.

by Mark Yannone

"Eight years ago, I was peacefully practicing medicine, doing my best to serve the needs of my patients, believing myself to be in compliance with all laws and ethical standards."

Then Wednesday rolled around.

"On December 12, 2001, I was overwhelmed by the intimidating sight of 40 agents of the U.S. government invading my office, two with revolvers in their hands."

Bernard L. Rottschaefer, M.D., an internist, is now serving a 5-year prison sentence. What put him behind bars should prompt other medical doctors to quit their practices and enroll in law school. If truth and the law could not protect this doctor from the criminals in the federal justice system, then no doctor can practice medicine with confidence.

The intimidation and persecution of private care physicians is a perfect strategy to advance the cause of communist medicine. I wonder if Hollywood will dare to make the movie. [Full story]

Doctor Cantoni, please report to pre-op

Dr. Relman knows how to fix health care and I know how to fix hearts

by Craig J. Cantoni

Arnold S. Relman, M.D., is Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Social Medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the former editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. With those credentials, he is an expert in economics and thus knows how to fix the economics of the American health care industry. Similarly, although I never went to medical school, I'm an expert in heart surgery, because I'm schooled in business and economics.

Dr. Relman showed his economics expertise in a letter to the editor in the June 12, 2008, Wall Street Journal. Keeping with his longstanding record of advocating government central planning in health care, he said that free trade applies to commerce and that "Medical care is not commerce and shouldn't be treated as if it were."

Well, then, he should be tickled pink with the American health care system, because it is the antithesis of free trade. That's because the government destroyed a consumer-is-king market in health care 66 years ago. The nation is now suffering with the consequences.

The esteemed physician is correct that medical care is not commerce. Other necessities of life also aren't commerce. For example, eating is not commerce, wearing clothes is not commerce, and living in a house is not commerce.

Commerce, or free trade, doesn't occur in these necessities of life until something of value is exchanged for them. Such voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange produces the necessities at far less cost and in greater quantities and varieties than central planning can produce. If that were not true, then the food, clothing, and housing industries should be nationalized, a la former Soviet Union. That way, everyone could shop at government commissaries, wear government uniforms, and live in government housing.

Of course, free trade isn't a panacea for every social ill. Markets won't keep some people from being too shortsighted, uneducated, irresponsible, poor, or disabled to feed, clothe and house themselves. What society should do about such people is open to debate, but a solution should not be to force everyone else to suffer under central planning because some people can't handle free choice and free markets.

Not only would central planning in food, clothing, and housing harm more people than it would help, but, more important, it would rob all people of their freedom and make them wards of the state or collective. Somehow, Dr. Relman thinks this is okay with respect to health care. Stated differently, he thinks that the state owns your body instead of you and thus should dictate what medical care you should receive, who should provide it, and what the provider should be paid.

Does he think the same about higher education? Should Harvard be taken over by the Massachusetts university system?

Dr. Relman also said in his letter that a free market in health care leads to fragmentation and stands in the way "of the integrated, sustained medical care that most people need." To be intellectually consistent, the good doctor must also believe that a free market in food, clothing, and housing stands in the way of the integrated, sustained supply of these items.

But what do I know? I'll defer to Dr. Relman, because, unlike me, he went to medical school and is therefore an expert in economics. By the way, if you need heart surgery, contact me at ccan2@aol.com.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

England adopts idiocracy

by Mark Yannone

England has discovered that communism doesn't provide them with good health care. Now they want to try socialism.

"The NHS will retain ownership of hospital buildings and services but the private firm will 'take over' the day to day running of the hospital." [Full story]

Misguided efforts like this can only survive among the willfully ignorant. A government-provided education can assure such profound ignorance among the general public. England's educational system--like that of the United States--is ideal for this purpose.

It's no coincidence that Americans are clamoring for communist health care. They are adequately stupid now.

See also: Idiocracy

The state of the union in plain English

What to do when the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of morons

by Craig J. Cantoni

We're being ruled by morons. If you doubt this, consider the following crises brought on by the morons. At the end of the sobering list, you'll find suggestions on what you can do when the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of morons.

The Monetary and Fiscal Crisis

The problems below have resulted from the Federal Reserve's easy money, the government's deficits and unfunded liabilities, and the disincentives to save that are embedded in the tax code and social-welfare programs.

• In 2002, one dollar could buy one euro. Today, it takes $1.60 to buy one euro. If it were not for this precipitous fall in the dollar, some experts say that a barrel of imported oil would cost about $80.

• From the end of the Second World War until the mid-1990s, the savings rate of US households fluctuated between eight and 12 percent of disposable income. It fell below five percent in the late 1990s and went negative in 2005.

• US households hold pension assets of more than $11 trillion, an impressive sounding amount until you realize that the assets only come to about $4,500 per year, per retiree, assuming a life expectancy of 20 years after retirement and a real return on investments of five percent. Many boomers were counting on escalating home prices and stock market valuations to supplement their nest eggs, but now face declines in both.
  

• Astonishingly, each American under the age of 18 is being bequeathed a bill of $800,000 for the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare of previous generations.

• Local state and national governments now consume about 45 percent of national income, versus 12 percent prior to 1930 and 22 percent in 1947. If regulatory costs are added, well over half of income is consumed by the government today.

• About 60 percent of the population either works for the government, is in a household where the primary breadwinner works for the government, is dependent on government subsidies or handouts, or works in a private-sector job that depends on government regulations (e.g., tax accountants). And then Americans wonder why politicians pander to special interests. Suggestion: Look in the mirror.
  

The Education Crisis

The conventional wisdom says that American high school students are not taught rigorous courses in math and science. Actually, that's not true for many students, especially high achievers from two-parent families and with college-educated parents. In order to meet the toughened admission requirements of good universities, such students are taking rigorous honors and advanced placement courses that are more challenging than the courses taken by their parents and grandparents. There is an academic crisis, however, within certain minority and socioeconomic groups, a crisis that is exacerbated by high rates of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, which in turn have been exacerbated by government policies.

But even the high achievers are woefully deficient in economics and political philosophy. Either intentionally or unintentionally, they have been taught a statist, collectivist perspective on economics and government--a view that is reinforced in college. As such, they become adults who don't know economic facts like the ones in this article and thus elect morons to public office.

The Housing Crisis

The proximate cause of the housing bubble and its collapse was greedy homeowners and investors, but the root causes were the Fed's easy money, the incentives in the tax code that encouraged people to buy more expensive homes than they would have otherwise bought, and government housing policies that encouraged lenders to give unsecured mortgages to unqualified borrowers. These root causes are not being addressed by our morons in Washington.

The Energy Crisis

Yes, energy is a crisis, but it didn't have to be one. A combination of government inaction and the wrong government action has left us with the no real alternatives to petroleum. With foresight and strategic thinking ten years ago, the situation would be different today. The nation would be benefiting from a marked increase in domestic oil production and refining capacity; a marked increase in the use of our massive coal reserves; and the construction of scores of new nuclear power plants, which, although not cheap, could recharge electric cars, heat and air-condition homes, and provide the energy necessary to produce hydrogen for transportation and other uses.

Instead, our ruling class has left us extremely vulnerable to interruptions in the supply of oil and to rising fuel prices. They have interfered with the market when the market would have worked, and they have taken counterproductive actions in those cases where markets wouldn't work.

Americans don't realize that in today's just-in-time world serviced by 18-wheel trucks, there is only a two- to three-day supply of food and other essentials. We're standing on a razor's edge of security. It's not a stretch to think about an interruption in oil supply triggering food riots. Nor is it a stretch to think about a war over resources. After all, ever since humans learned to stand upright, they've been killing each other over resources.

The Iraq War Crisis

The nation has done a lot of boneheaded things internationally under both Democrats and Republicans, especially in the Middle East. But the Iraq War was particularly boneheaded, considering the foregoing crises facing the country. Only 29 percent of Congress voted against the war, but it's difficult to recall anyone in Congress or the media asking obvious questions about unintended consequences. It shouldn't have taken the benefit of hindsight to ask:

• When the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein is removed from power, what will keep Shiites from seeking revenge on Sunnis and rekindling the longstanding hatred between the two branches of Islam?

• When the Sunni counterbalance to Shiite Iran is removed from power in Iraq, what will fill the void to keep Iran in check?

• If Baath Party members are fired from their government posts, how will they find work and who will run government bureaus and utilities?

In addition to the crisis of Iraq, there is the huge cost and ongoing blowback of maintaining over 700 military bases around the world.

The Health Care Crisis

The major cause of the health care crisis can be summarized in one sentence: The government almost totally destroyed a consumer market in medical insurance and medical care 66 years ago.

Now the geniuses in Washington and in the presidential race want to administer the coup de grace to what is left of the market by nationalizing the industry.

Just as they do with the Iraq War, politicians and the press are not asking questions about unintended consequences. In addition to rationing of medical services and long wait times for treatment, the nationalization of the industry could result in lower incomes and higher unemployment for the poor. Studies have shown that as entitlements increase, the poor have less of an incentive to improve their lives.

Conclusion

Supposedly, we're a constitutional republic that is ruled by the rule of law. The law specifies how we elect our representatives and how we throw them out of office if they are morons and endanger us. But we're not throwing them out of office. Worse, we are getting ready to elect one of the Three Stooges to be president.

What can be done? Nothing. You see, the problem isn't that we are ruled by morons. The problem is that we are morons for electing morons.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author, a columnist, and a moron. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Sweet land of liberty or land of taken liberties?

I'm as unpatriotic as the Obamas and Reverend Wright

by Craig J. Cantoni

Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and their minister, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, have something in common with me: They are not patriots. However, there is one big difference between them and me: They have never been patriots.

Judging by their words and friends, they have always disliked the nation's founding ideals, especially the ideals of limited government, individualism, and economic freedom. By contrast, those were the ideals that made me a patriot at one time.

The Obamas and their minister embrace a different set of ideals: statism, collectivism, and rights based on group affiliation and majority rule instead of rights based on pluralism, natural law, and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the nation's political center has shifted so far to the left that most Americans now embrace the Obama set, which is similar to the McCain set, minus his imperialism.

The nation is no longer the nation of my father, who is buried in a Veteran's cemetery. Nor is it the nation of my youth, when I was proud of my two silver captain's bars, my cross-cannon insignia representing my chosen combat branch of artillery, and my college award for being a "Distinguished Military Graduate." Back then, it was a nation that often fell short of its ideals but was always striving to achieve them. Today, it is a nation that is striving to replicate the economic policies of modern-day France through Obama-ism, and the foreign policy of colonial France through McCain-ism.

Sorry, but I can't get patriotic about a country that wants to become another France.

Sure, I still like such quintessential American traditions as hot dogs, apple pie, and baseball--as long as it isn't subsidized baseball.

Speaking of which, once a year my wife drags me to an Arizona Diamondbacks game, where I sit in a subsidized stadium and stew over the fact that our Republican president made millions from subsidized baseball, that the beer distributorship of Cindy McCain sells a lot of beer in subsidized stadiums, and that many Republicans see nothing wrong with local government expropriating money from non-fans so that fans can sit in air-conditioned comfort at other people's expense.

These dwarf elephants don't understand that once they concede that it is okay for government to take people's money for something as unessential as baseball, they lose their moral authority to stop the government from taking people's money for more serious-sounding endeavors, such as achieving perfect fairness, eliminating the income gap, stopping smoking, mandating helmets, leaving no child behind, bailing out foolish borrowers and lenders, saving the planet from imagined destruction, giving everyone free health care, doling out subsidies to farmers and ethanol producers, and anything else that creeps into the minds of busybodies, leftists, and phony conservatives.

When 30,000 fans stand for the National Anthem, I look around the stadium and know that 15,000 of them pay little or no federal income tax and that 18,000 of them either work for the government, are dependent on government handouts, or work in private-sector jobs that depend on government regulations. In other words, at any given baseball game, over half of the fans have a vested interest in statism and collectivism.

Chances are, that half includes the obese couple and their obese children who invariably sit in front of me at games and gorge for nine innings on nachos covered in processed cheese, on pizza covered with greasy pepperoni and mozzarella, on multiple helpings of popcorn and cotton candy, and on five-dollar sodas and eight-dollar beers. No doubt, Mr. and Mrs. Porker want nationalized medicine. After all, according to many health experts, 80 percent of serious illnesses and the corresponding expensive medical treatments are due to overeating and a lack of exercise. Under the Obama set of values, the Porker family can shift the cost of their gluttony and sloth to their fellow Americans who eat healthfully and exercise.

Mind you, I would get my Army uniform out of mothballs and defend the right of the Porkers to gorge themselves to an early death, but not if they want to stick me with the cost.

Sadly, we've become a nation of greedy, gluttonous, slothful porkers. I can no longer feel patriotic about such a nation.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Americans don't know, don't care (yet)

There is no problem too small for the government to make big, and no problem too big for the government to ignore

by Craig J. Cantoni

George W. Bush and his merry band of neoconservatives (aka militaristic liberals) will go down in history as souring generations of Americans on liberty, free markets, and limited government. He was assisted in this destruction of freedom by the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, and by the left-liberal takeover of K-12 schools, universities, and the establishment media.

As a result, the United States has reached the point where:

1. There is no problem too small for the government to make big.

2. There is no problem too big for the government to ignore.

An example of No. 1 is health care. Health care was a small problem for a small number of Americans until the government made it a big problem for many Americans by destroying a consumer market in health care and health insurance. Now with plans to further socialize health care, the government is going to make the problem even bigger.

The same with today's big problems of the housing bubble, the mediocre performance of K-12 schools, and the rising cost of food, gas, and college tuition. These used to be small problems until the government made them big by interfering with market forces.

An example of No. 2 is the $60 trillion or so in unfunded liabilities for entitlements and public pensions. As I've written elsewhere, that comes to about $800,000 for each American under the voting age of 18. This problem is so big and so politically dangerous that it is being ignored by the presidential candidates and the rest of the political establishment. Amazingly, the press and the public are letting them get by with printing money to mask the problem instead of solving it.

Scores of other big problems are being ignored by the presidential candidates, the press, and the public. Examples: the cost and blowback of maintaining over 700 military bases around the world; the social pathologies of out-of-wedlock births and single-parenting, both of which have increased dramatically, due to misguided government policies; the transformation of the nation from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, due to shortsighted tax, spending, and monetary policies; the frightening fact that over half of voters are now either dependent on the government, work for the government, or hold private-sector jobs that depend on government regulations; and the astonishing level of illiteracy in economics of the American people, an illiteracy that demagogues on the left and right are using to their advantage while screwing the American people.

Of course, those who work for the government or feed off the government have a vested interest in the government turning small problems into big problems and ignoring big problems. The bigger the problems, the bigger the government; and the bigger the government, the bigger their government rice bowl.

Hmm, maybe that explains the skyrocketing cost of rice.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

One simple decision that can extend your life considerably

Are out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families public health issues?

by Craig J. Cantoni
Published in Spring 2008 edition of AZMedicine

Arizona ranks near the top of the 50 states in out-of-wedlock births, with an illegitimacy rate of about 37 percent. It also ranks near the top in single-parent families, with 33 percent of Arizona children living with only one of their parents or with a grandparent.

Are these public health issues that physicians and the rest of the medical profession should address? Or are they behavioral and social issues that should be left to religious and social organizations?

Before answering, consider the following statistics from The Heritage Foundation:

• Compared to families headed by married biological parents, the risk of child abuse is 14 times higher in single-mother families, 20 times higher in single-father families, and 33 times higher when a mother cohabitates with a boyfriend.
  

• Children of parents who have always been single have a 54 percent higher incidence of emotional disorders and twice the incidence of conduct disorders than children in married-couple families.
  

• Children from broken homes have twice the incarceration rate as children from intact families.
  

• Women who lived in broken homes or single-parent homes as teenagers are three times more likely to have children out of wedlock.
  

• Only six percent of married-couple families are in poverty, versus 36 percent of families headed by single mothers. And a whopping 92 percent of married-couple families have an income of over $75,000.
  

Regarding the last bullet-point, the causal link between single parenting and poverty is germane to this discussion, because poverty is in turn linked to health problems, especially problems stemming from obesity and smoking.

Studies show that states with higher poverty rates have higher obesity rates, after adjusting for other demographic factors, such as the racial makeup of the population. And the World Bank has shown that there is an inverse relationship between income and smoking: the lower the income, the higher the prevalence of smoking.

These statistics suggest that out-of-wedlock births and single parenting are often the starting point in a chain of causation that leads through other links to serious health problems. It would seem, therefore, that physicians and the rest of the medical profession should view both as public health issues. After all, a precedent has been established with smoking and overeating. Although smoking and overeating are behaviors and not communicable diseases, they are seen as public health issues, primarily because tobacco use and obesity increase the incidence of cancer, heart disease and other health problems—problems that increase public expenditures on medical care. (Whether medical care should be socialized at all is a separate issue.) As such, there are considerable efforts to change behavior through tobacco taxes, anti-smoking laws, nutrition labeling, public-service advertisements, and doctor-patient counseling.

Out-of-wedlock births and single-parenting are similar to smoking and overeating, in the sense that they are not communicable diseases but are behavioral and social issues that increase public expenditures on medical care (and on other services). Granted, out-of-wedlock births and single-parenting are not the proximate causes of health problems, but, as we have seen, they are the root causes of many of them. Failing to address the root causes is akin to treating malaria and encephalitis without addressing the root problem of standing water and mosquitoes.

Of course, responsibility for the problems does not lie with just women. It is shared equally with men who are abusive, walk away from their paternal obligations, and lack the maturity to commit to a lifelong relationship.

On a related point, the leading cause of premature death among black males is murder. Not to make a political statement, but the chain of causation for this tragedy goes back in time to misguided government policies that encouraged inner-city women to marry the state instead of the fathers of their children, thus removing marriage and family as the primary civilizing influences on men. (Eighty percent of inner-city black children are now born out of wedlock.) If the same number of black men were dying from fast food, there would be an outcry to make it a public health issue and do something about it.

Take smoking. The outcry over smoking has been so loud and constant that smokers have been demonized, consigned to smoking at the fringes of parking lots, and subjected to public-service commercials that call their habit "disgusting and puking." At the same time, the popular culture treats single parenting as simply a lifestyle choice and not something that can harm children. Worse, the media, Hollywood, and business pander to single parents, especially single mothers, praising them for their tough life but not asking why they are single, what happened to the fathers of their children, or how their single parenting affects the well-being of their children and society.

This is not to suggest that single parents should wear a scarlet letter or be demonized like smokers. But it is to suggest that a double standard is used to decide what qualifies as a public health issue. Public health has been expanded from communicable diseases to include behaviors that can cause health problems. However, only some behaviors are included—the ones that are socially acceptable to criticize, such as smoking.

Perhaps physicians and the rest of the medical profession should worry less about social acceptability and more about the ill-effects of out-of-wedlock births and single parenting on the well-being of children and public health.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist, and activist who has been involved with health care reform. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

What wine goes best with Soylent Green?

The collectivists have won the war over who owns your body

by Craig J. Cantoni

Almost all of the myriad political philosophies can be distilled to two competing ideas:

Individualism holds that people own their bodies and the fruits of their labor, and that they can do what they want with both as long as they don't harm anyone else. Under this idea, the purpose of government is to protect what people own from predators.

Collectivism holds that the king, emperor, alpha male, clan, tribe, state, Nancy Pelosi, or George W. Bush owns people's bodies and the fruits of their labor. Under this idea, the purpose of government is to force people to work for other people, either through slavery, serfdom, tribalism, nationalism, communism, fascism, socialism, Jacobinism, imperialism, mercantilism, utilitarianism, progressivism, modern-day liberalism, neo-conservatism, Obama-ism, Clinton-ism, or McCain-ism.

I can complicate this with an egghead discussion of the great philosophers through the ages, but we'd just go full circle and end up with the two competing ideas. You either own your body and the fruits of your labor, or other people own them.

With the exception of voluntary communes and utopian social experiments, collectivism depends on force. Public education is an example. People who don't use government schools are forced to subsidize those who do, including wealthy people who use them. If public schools are so great, then why do they depend on force?

The same question can be asked about nationalized health care.

With individualism and its sibling of capitalism, social and business relationships are voluntary, including feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and educating the poor. The other "isms" are based on involuntary relationships.

The greatest terrors in the world have come at the hands of collectivists; yet collectivists continue to characterize individualists as mean-spirited, selfish, and uncaring.

When taken to its logical conclusion, collectivism results in the absurdity of communism. But individualism would not result in absurdity if taken to its logical conclusion. There is no reductio ad absurdum of individualism.

Collectivists say that individualism leads to social Darwinism, but if individualism had prevailed around the world throughout human history, there would have been no slavery, no genocide, no mass starvation, no gulags, no Holocaust, no Jim Crow, no income gap between blacks and whites, and no constituency for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Hundreds of millions of people wouldn't have died for someone's collective notion.

The logical conclusion of individualism may be utopian, but it isn't absurd.

What is absurd is that collectivism has won in the United States, which was the last hope for individualism. Collectivism's victory has been so total that individualism is no longer even mentioned as an option by the political, media, business, and education establishment.

Do you think that you own your body and the fruits of your labor? Don't be absurd.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

No wonder Americans are being drugged senseless!

What if Government Harming were covered as extensively as Global Warming?

by Craig J. Cantoni

The current issue of Time magazine has a cover story about global warming. How original. It's just one of hundreds of messages that drip on our heads and our children's heads each day about global warming.

Drip-drip-drip.

Hundreds of other messages drip on us about Big Oil, evil corporations, rampant racism, rising income inequality, and the glories of diversity. The drops come from the media, K-12 schools, universities, and, amazingly, even from corporate advertising.

Drip-drip-drip.

The torrent contains some facts, but most of it is hyperbole and hysteria. I'd rather be water-boarded than endure this form of water torture.

Curiously, messages about government harming are as rare as rain in Death Valley. By "harming," I mean the insidious and pervasive harm that the government is inflicting on the economy and society.

For example, you won't see this on the cover of Time:

THE $800,000 INJUSTICE

The staggering sum of $800,000 is what the unfunded liabilities for entitlements and public pensions will come to per child if they are bequeathed to the 75 million children under the voting age of 18.

How many times a day do you hear about this coming travesty of justice from the establishment media, from our benevolent government, and from the presidential candidates (aka the Three Stooges)? Better yet, how many times have your children been told in government K-12 schools about the lives of servitude they face to pay off the $800,000 bill?

Oh, sorry. I showed my ignorance with the last question. Every time I've written that government schools are inherently statist and engage in propaganda, parents email nastygrams in response, calling me an ignoramus and other names too gross to repeat her. Since I'm an ignoramus, it must be true that K-12 students are taught as often about the danger of the $800,000 as they are taught about the danger of global warming.

Right, parents?

Hello, are you there, parents? Knock-knock, anyone home? Can you hear me above the sound of the drops?

Funny thing, but when I told my kid about the $800,000, he was much more interested in that subject than he was in the subjects of global warming and diversity.

Did I break the law by telling him? Have Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold made it a crime for a father to give such facts to his son 60 days prior to an election?

For sure, you can count on President Barack "Bolshevik" Obama and First Lady Michelle "Fidel" Obama to increase the volume of drops. After all, both of them think that 13,000 hours spent with unionized teachers in government classrooms is not enough indoctrination during childhood. Drip-drip-drip. Borrowing a page from the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, they also want young adults to join a government job corps after graduation to work for the good of society and the environment--and, of course, to learn more about the party line. Drip-drip-drip-drip-drip-drip.

You'd think that in 13,000 hours there would be time to teach children such apolitical facts as these:

• that the government's share of national income has doubled in the last 80 years;

• that transfer payments, subsidies, and handouts accounted for approximately five percent of federal spending 100 years ago, versus over half of spending today;

• that the cost of government and government regulations is almost $30,000 a year per household, or about 65 percent of average household income;

• that the government created today's health care mess 66 years ago;

• that many, if not most, socioeconomic problems are caused by out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, both of which have been fueled by government policies;

• that public education has failed miserably to achieve its goal of universal education, and that the productivity of public schools has plummeted, as measured by test scores and spending;

• that government bookkeeping is fraudulent, and that the Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction; and

• that the government is covering its profligate spending by debasing the currency and punishing savers with inflation.

If children were to know such facts about government harming as well as they know half-truths about global warming, think of what would happen. They'd grow into adults who would turn off the dripping propaganda faucet. Of course, that's why the brainwashers will never teach children about government harming.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

"A night on the town" shouldn't be a socialist conspiracy

Sniveling into their enchiladas about gas and health care

by Craig J. Cantoni

I actually saw the following yesterday evening with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears.

After struggling to get their overweight bodies out of their new Cadillac Escalade, a middle-aged couple waddled into a Mexican restaurant in Scottsdale, Arizona, sat down at the table next to mine, ordered two $7 margaritas and huge platters of greasy food, and began complaining about the price of gas and health care.

It's none of my business what they drive, eat, drink, and say, as long as they don't vote to shift the cost of their gluttony, lethargy, spendthrift ways, and economic illiteracy to me and others. Unfortunately, so many Americans are now like the couple that the word "American" has become synonymous with "fat, stupid, and spoiled."

The couple paid $14 for maybe three ounces of tequila, or nearly $600 per gallon; yet they complained about paying $3.25 for a gallon of gas. They also complained about a $50 co-pay for medicine but drove a $40,000 SUV.

A few days before, I heard callers on a talk-radio show say that the government should eliminate gas taxes. They described themselves as conservatives.

Real conservatives would understand that gas taxes are actually a good tax, as far as taxes go, because most of the tax is used for road construction and maintenance. (Tolls would be better.) At least with gas taxes, there is some relationship between what drivers pay for roads and how much they use the roads. In that sense, gas taxes are a proxy for user fees, which are the fairest way of paying for government services and are a natural brake on the cost of government, because users can't shift their cost to non-users.

The same can't be said for the excise tax on tequila, a tax that accounts for about half the price of liquor. The tax has no discernible relationship to the government services used by drinkers.

Eliminating gas taxes would result in the cost of roads being socialized across the entire population, thus requiring light users of roads to subsidize heavy users of roads. Or in economic terms, users of roads would become insensitive to the cost of the roads.

Cost insensitivity is the case with mass transit, which is highly subsidized. It's also the case with health care.

When the government destroyed a consumer market in health care 66 years ago, it shifted the cost to employers. Then in 1965 it shifted the cost for about half the population to the government with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. The result has been a disconnect between the demand for health care and the cost of health care. The disconnect will widen with nationalized health care.

In practical terms, this means that overweight diners at a Mexican restaurant can clog their arteries at the expense of those who don't clog their arteries. And since society at large is picking up their medical costs, the diners can spend the savings on an Escalade--for a while, that is.

I say "for a while," because costs don't decrease just because they've become hidden and socialized. The opposite is true: they increase. Eventually, the diners will discover that their take-home income has fallen and the size of the car they can afford has shrunken, along with their standard of living. But they won't be able to connect the dot of their own irresponsible choices with the dot of their lower income.

The press will then run stories about people having trouble making ends meet. And socialist politicians like Barack Obama, and populist politicians like John McCain, will blame corporate greed and capitalism.

Meanwhile, the true culprits will remain clueless and keep sniveling into their greasy enchiladas and lard-soaked refried beans.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Your chewing gum instructions are on page 938 of your tax forms

Are Americans insane?

by Craig J. Cantoni

The eleventh edition of Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "insanity" as: "such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civic responsibility."

Insanity would explain why Americans turn to the government to fix problems caused by the government, thus making the problems worse. It would also explain why Democrats say they care about the little people and then enact socioeconomic policies that hurt the little people. And it would explain why Republicans say they care about national security and then embrace a foreign policy that endangers national security.

The only people who aren't insane are libertarians (aka classical liberals), but they are considered insane by everyone else.

Examples of insanity could fill a book. Below are some:

• Our government caused the mortgage bubble. Now the government is going to make matters worse with a "cure" that will fuel inflation, continue to devalue the dollar, drive up the cost of loans, and hurt the little people.

Note: Since the United States has a representative form of government, and since elected representatives do the bidding of those who elected them, the word "voters" is synonymous with the word "government." Thus, it was really voters who caused the mortgage bubble. And since voters are insane, it was really the insane who caused the mortgage bubble.

• Sixty-six years ago, the government (the insane) destroyed a consumer market in health care and medical insurance, thus precipitating today's health care mess. Now the insane want the government to have complete control over their health care and make going to the doctor the same as going to the Post Office.

• In the nineteenth century, the government established a monopoly over K-12 education in order to achieve universal education. It has failed miserably to achieve that goal. However, instead of ending the monopoly with education vouchers and tax credits, the insane keep giving the monopoly more money.

• College tuition has skyrocketed because the government has devalued a high school degree and has flooded colleges with student loans and subsidies, thus eliminating the need for colleges to cut costs and innovate. Now Barack Obama and his insane groupies want to flood colleges with more money in order to reduce the cost of a college education.

• Government subsidies, welfare, and entitlements have increased dependency, out-of-wedlock births, single-parent families, dropouts, learning difficulties, crime, and other social pathologies. Yet the insane want to distribute more government largess to those being hurt by government largess.

• Last example: A sane person, President Dwight Eisenhower, warned about the military-industrial complex. Today, due to a lot of insane Republicans and some insane Democrats, the nation has over 700 military bases around the world, creating resentment among the local populations and incurring unsustainable costs.

Sanity rarely happens, but when it does, the insane end it. Take free trade. The evidence is compelling that free trade agreements are essential for job growth, GDP growth, and a better standard of living. Yet the insane want to cancel free trade agreements and adopt protectionist measures.

Perhaps Americans aren't insane. Perhaps they are merely misinformed by the "See Spot run" media of the left and right. Perhaps they are illiterate in economics. Perhaps they are operating out of short-term self-interest. Or perhaps they have been brainwashed in government K-12 schools and leftist universities to embrace statism.

In any event, don't listen to me. The crazy state of American politics has driven me so insane that I've become a libertarian.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at the insane asylum or at ccan2@aol.com.

Doctors' prescription: "Take daily, but not from me"

Can't think logically after 22 years of education

by Craig J. Cantoni

Surveys show that a majority of physicians now support nationalized health care (aka socialized medicine). I recently had this exchange with one of them:

"Are you okay with the government cutting the pay of docs to $75,000?" I asked.

"No!" he harrumphed. "That wouldn't be fair, considering the years of education of physicians." He then exclaimed indignantly, "I deserve more than $75,000 after going to school for 22 years."

After further discussion with the doctor, I learned that what he really advocates is a single-payer system in which the government pays the bills of patients but doesn't lower the pay of doctors. Of course, as I explained to him, nationalized health care invariably results in the government using the power of the state to set prices and wages, ration care, and restrict the choices of patients.

I posed this question to him: "Suppose that for 22 years, someone of modest means has watched his diet, exercised, led a healthy life, and saved money for medical emergencies and the infirmities of old age. Why do you think it would be fair for the government to take the person's savings to pay the medical expenses of gluttonous, sedentary spendthrifts, but, at the same time, it wouldn't be fair for the government to cut the pay of doctors?"

There was silence for five seconds as the physician's eyes blinked and his cranium emitted the sound of grinding gears and the acrid smoke of burning electrical circuits.

Finally, through the noise and smoke of his overtaxed brain, he responded with claptrap about the common good, completely evading my question in the process.

I've asked a related question of people from all walks of life and education levels: "Since you think it's a good idea to nationalize health care, then do you also think it's a good idea to nationalize food, housing, clothing, and transportation?"

The question invariably produces noise and smoke but no logical answer.

There is a logical answer to the question--not one that I agree with, but logical nonetheless. However, almost no one gives the logical answer, thus suggesting that most people haven't thought about the inconsistency of advocating socialism for health care but not other necessities of life.

What is it about the American education system that keeps people from thinking logically and seeing the intellectual contradictions of their positions? And how is it possible for people to have degrees from the best schools in the country and still think that it's okay for the government to use force against others but not against themselves?

One answer is that our national leaders are role modes for such thinking. Take Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush. Although the three of them attended one of the most prestigious universities in the country, Yale University, many of their positions are inconsistent, contradictory, and illogical. They preach freedom but are actually statist and collectivist to varying degrees, believing that the individual should be subservient to a powerful centralized government and that one's income can be confiscated by the state and given to other people. Judging by the illogical and scary thinking of these three, Yale is greatly overrated.

A second answer is that it's easy for people to be magnanimous with other people's liberty and money. For example, the aforementioned physician thinks that nationalized health care is great as long as someone else's income is taken and not his. Similarly, soccer moms think that more money should be spent on the public education of their kids, as long as the education is highly subsidized by taxpayers who don't use the schools.

A third answer is that many people are selfish, self-centered, and self-absorbed twits. They are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of others and thus have no empathy for people whose liberty or money they take for their own convenience or benefit. Anti-smoking zealots are a case in point. Because they don't like tobacco smoke, they think nothing of telling bar and restaurant owners that they can't cater to smokers on the owners' private property. After all, it would be inconvenient for the zealots to patronize a different bar or restaurant. But if their liberty is threatened, the twits scream like Barack Obama's minister at Sunday service.

The physician and his ilk should heal their damaged brains by taking a course in logic.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Sometimes you wonder where kids learn that crap

Public education is a great teacher

by Craig J. Cantoni

No doubt you've heard the horror stories about American public education: the administrative bloat and innovation-killing bureaucracy, the politically-correct gruel that only a government monopoly can produce, the low test scores relative to other countries, the self-serving teacher unions that pretend to care about kids, the never-ending cost increases, the extreme egalitarian silliness of No Child Left Behind, and the communistic pay system that pays teachers basically the same salary whether they have a PhD in math or a degree in education.

But let's be fair here: Despite all of these horror stories, public education is a great teacher.

How do I know? Well, I've been studying public education for over a decade and writing about my findings and conclusions in mainstream newspapers and other publications for just as long. The hundreds of angry letters to the editor and emails from public school parents in response to my articles prove that public education is a great teacher.

What does it teach? Judging by the hate mail, it teaches three lessons:

1. It teaches people to do unethical things to their neighbors as members of a collective that they would never think of doing as individuals.

2. It teaches group-think about public education and the so-called common good.

3. It teaches people, including many hardcore conservatives and libertarians, that socialism and coercion are justifiable if they can benefit personally from both at the expense of others.

Don't believe me? Then let's look at a real-life case study. Let's look at Steve and Susan.

Steve and Susan are the upper middle-class parents of three kids, all of whom attend public schools in an Arizona school district, which will spend approximately $360,000 on their education over 12 years. Over their adult lives, Steve and Susan will pay about $190,000 in public school taxes, or $170,000 less than what they will receive in education services. Much of the $170,000 shortfall will be made up by people who are childless, who home-school their kids, or who send their kids to private school.

Two of these people, Carl and Cathy, live next door to Steve and Susan. They also will pay about $190,000 over their adult lives in public education taxes, but unlike Steve and Susan, they will receive no direct benefits in return, because their children attend parochial schools. Steve and Susan would never think of going next door and robbing Carl and Cathy of $170,000 at the point of a gun to make up the difference between what they pay in public school taxes and what they receive in public education for their three kids. Seeing themselves as moral, upstanding people, Steve and Susan would rather cut their spending in other areas to make up the difference out of their own pockets than rob their neighbors.

But having learned their lessons in public schools, Steve and Susan don't realize that they are indeed robbing their neighbors. How? By allowing, and even encouraging, the government to take money from Carl and Cathy for their own kids' education, although they can afford to pay the full cost out of their own pockets. In a real sense, they have retained government agents to do their robbing for them.

When their intellectual contradiction and situational ethics are pointed out to them, they don't say, Gosh, I've never thought of that. Instead, they throw insults at the person who pointed it out to them, and then they engage in intellectual somersaults to rationalize what they have done. They have been taught well by the government.

One of their rationalizations is to say that public education helps the poor. Of course, since Steve and Susan are in the upper middle-class, it doesn't help the poor for them to take their neighbors' money. It helps them, not the poor.

Besides, food stamps help the poor without socializing the food industry and forcing everyone to buy groceries at government commissaries. Why should education be different?

Oh-oh! That wasn't covered in their lessons.

Some say that education is different because public schools are where children learn American values. Well, if that's the case, then the government should control more than K-12 classroom thought. It also should control newspapers, books, TV, movies, the Internet, and what parents teach their kids.

Another rationalization of Steve and Susan is to claim that no one forced Carl and Cathy to choose to send their kids to parochial school and thus pay double for education. Think of the indoctrination that has to occur for people not to see through this rationalization. Obviously, since Carl and Cathy don't have a choice in paying education taxes, they didn't have a choice between two competing free choices. It's a Hobson's choice, not a free choice. Besides, it is un-American to force Carl and Cathy to pay twice for education in order to exercise their constitutional right of religious freedom and send their kids to Catholic school.

Let's apply the faulty thinking that Steve and Susan learned in government schools to the health care industry: If the government were to nationalize the industry and make everyone pay into a health care collective, then, according to Steve and Susan, people wouldn't be justified in complaining about having to pay again to see a private doctor. Better yet, people shouldn't be allowed to see a private doctor under nationalized health care.

Unfortunately, most Americans now subscribe to such thinking. As I said, public education is a great teacher.
______________

Mr. Cantoni is an author and columnist. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Cantoni vows to give up lying, cheating, stealing, and almost all killing

A cranky old man confesses his sins

by Craig J. Cantoni

During the last two decades of writing hundreds of articles for mainstream publications, I've been called a cranky old man, a curmudgeon, an iconoclast, an extremist, a utopian, a fascist, a communist, a cynic, a dogmatist, and a mean-spirited misanthrope. Other names are too scatological to repeat here.

My sin? I believe in the maxim "live and let live."

It gets worse. I also believe: (1) that people can do whatever they want as long as they don't harm or endanger anyone else; (2) that the primary role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property; (3) that people who ask the government to take money by force from other people for themselves or their pet causes are thieves; (4) that I have a moral responsibility to help the poor and the sick, but through voluntary charity, not force; and (5) that because most Americans no longer believe these precepts, the nation is on the road to bankruptcy.

Will you forgive me?

Wait! Before meting out my penance, let me finish my confession.

• Twenty years ago, I wrote in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere about the causes of, and the cures for, the nation's health insurance mess. I also warned Republicans that if they didn't do something about the mess, they were going to lose the issue to the Democrats and risk the nationalization of the health care industry. Big business and the Republican establishment accused me of pessimism.

• During the dot-com bubble, I said that stock multiples of 30 or more couldn't be justified and that the tech market would crash. Experts with MBAs from Wharton, Harvard, and Chicago universities said I was nuts.

• As George W. Bush was preparing to attack Iraq, I said that an attack would be foolish, because it would remove the counterbalance to Shiite Iran. F