All The Gear and Preparation in the World

Will never be able to replace the will to fight, or to defend yourself.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday praised an Army soldier in eastern Afghanistan who drew media attention this month after rushing to defend his post from attack while wearing pink boxer shorts and
flip-flops.

In fact, Gates said he wants to meet the soldier and shake his hand the next time he visits Afghanistan.

"Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage," Gates said in remarks prepared for a speech in New York.

"I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that: a guy
in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his cross-hairs. What an incredible innovation in psychological warfare," he said.

Army Specialist Zachary Boyd, 19, of Fort Worth, Texas, rushed from his sleeping quarters on May 11 to join fellow platoon members at a base in Afghanistan's Kunar Province after the unit came under fire from Taliban positions. A news photographer was on hand to record the image of Boyd standing at a makeshift rampart in helmet, body armor, red T-shirt and boxers emblazoned with the message: "I love NY."

When the image wound up on the front page of the New York Times, Boyd
told his parents he might lose his job if President Barack Obama saw him out of
uniform.

"I can assure you that Specialist Boyd's job is very safe indeed," Gates said in the speech.

The U.S. defense chief was scheduled to deliver the speech at New York's annual Salute to Freedom dinner in Manhattan.

Heh...

Am I the only one who laughed when they saw today's headline?

"House sends credit card bill to Obama"

Heh, its too bad he just going to, in turn, forward the bill to John Q. Taxpayer.

Public Safety?

Lyle, at Joe Huffman's blog (which you, as well as I, should read more often) has some great comments on the fallacy of "Public Safety"

We in the pro-freedom camp (Americans) spend too much time arguing about safety. Or rather, we argue safety far too often in the terms laid down by our enemies-- the enemies of liberty. Though the statistics are often on our side, we're granting the basis for the argument (that government exists to promote the physical safety of the individual) to the enemy.

Wrong premise

You should read the rest here.

UPDATE: Danny Hauser, Fugitive from Poison.

It appears the state's test of faith Failed. Danny Hauser, pictured with his mother Colleen, above, is now the subject of a national manhunt after the two did not show up for a court hearing on Tuesday. (follow the link for the original story)

This is, of course, immediately following another hearing in which Brown County, Minnesota District Judge John Rodenberg found that the state has demonstrated "a compelling interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override fundimental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel" 

In response to the mother and child failing to appear before the same judge who has already ordered Danny to be subjected to chemotherapy against his and his parents will, the judge issued an arrest warrant for Colleen, and ordered Danny to be remanded to the custody of child welfare services, citing that "It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible." His father, Anthony, (mistakenly identified as David in the media) did appear for the hearing, but after his claim of marital privledge, the right that no person can be forced to testify against their spouse, was overruled by the judge, he testified that he does not know where his wife and son are and that they left the family's farm on Monday afternoon, after his wife told him that they had to leave "for a while." The father also testified that Danny was not there at that time.

State and national crime alerts went out Tuesday afternoon, along with a copy of the arrest and detainment warrants for both Colleen and Danny, but at this time, their location is unknown.

Danny, as well as his mother believe that the Chemotherapy will do great harm to his body, as well as cause great pain to the 13 year old boy. They also beleive, as a matter of principle, that it is immoral to willingly and knowingly cause harm to another human being without that persons consent. In this sense, i agree with them 100%, and a short list of Chemotherapy side effects is all that it really takes to prove that it is in fact harmful.

Hair Loss
Nausea
Immune System Suppression
Brain Damage
Sores
Vascular Problems
Heart Damage
Liver and Kidney Damage
Lung Damage
Eye Damage
Mouth Sores
Anemia
Weight Loss
Weakness
Excessive Pain
Infertility
Sensitivity to Light
Wart and other skin problems
Increased Risk of Certain Types of Cancer

and Yes, Death. To include just a few.

In fact, a study released in January of this year by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Deaths in Britain, looked at the cases of 600 cancer sufferers in the country who had passed on within 30 days of treatment. The study found that about 1 in every 4 of such deaths had either been sped up or was probably caused by chemotherapy. The study's findings also included the discovery that 2 out of every 5 of the patients had suffered significant poisoning from the treatment. Danny Hauser stated in court that he beleived another round of Chemotherapy would kill him, and he might be right. In most, if not all cases of chemotherapy, even if they survive the treatment, the patient is likely to still die of Cancer

And so the Hausers feel, that irregardless of the potential (and no one has ever claimed it is a sure thing) benefit of chemo, it would still be immoral to subject little Danny Hauser to the known side effects of the most toxic drug set in the world, at the very least, without his consent. 

Many Cancer patients feel the same way, chosing not to undergo chemo, every day, in increasing numbers, as more and more of them have previously seen the effects of chemo firsthand.

The state, on the other hand, has no such compunction, and feels, as it does in almost all matters it takes into its hands, that no sacrifice, be it lives, propriety, or constitutional rights, is too great, as long as there is potential benefit for itself.

Godspeed Danny and Colleen Hauser, forced to flee from the reach of government intervention or to subject Danny to a test of faith in the immutible power of The State, who, of course, always knows whats best for you, or your children.

"When they Outlaw freedom, only Outlaws will be Free"

Correcting Home-schooling Misconceptions

At risk of sounding like I think that Parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit, be it in deciding how much poison should be pumped into a childs body, or how they decide to educate them, I have to touch on the subject, again, today, though not from the perspective objecting to government interference (yet.)

You see, a friend of mine ran into some particularly unfriendly professionals when they took their daughter to the dentist this morning, apparently the staff was offended that they would dare to educate their own child. This sort of reaction is all too familiar to many home-school parents when they encounter people who would never question "the way it is supposed to be" and can be even more complicated when the uneducated dolts they have to deal with work with the government or its school system, and can be difficult to overcome. I drafted the following letter to the owner of the practice in response, and thought I would also share it here.

To Whom it may concern:

It has come to my attention that members of your staff have some very strong misconceptions about home-schooled children and their parents, and have gone so far as to make derogatory and offensive comments to the parents of a home-schooled child that was in your office today. While I doubt that these parents will ever return to your practice with their wonderful daughter, I hope I can fix some of those misconceptions and prevent your employees from so offending other parents, in the future, with their ignorance and inappropriate comments. This is an issue that should be considered in all seriousness, as today in the United States somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million children's parents choose to educate those children at home, to become more involved in the process of raising a well educated and responsible child.

I encourage you to share the following facts with your staff:

1. Home-schooled children are not neglected or disadvantaged educationally. 

In 1997, a study of 5,402 home-school students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that home-schoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. These scores were all compiled from the educational industry standard Stanford Achievement Test, the same test that is used to benchmark the educational progress of children in public school. 

These 5,124 home-schoolers' composite scores on the basic battery of tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile points above public school averages. For instance, 692 home-schooled 4th graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade home-schoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading, the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.

The home-schooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred and eighteen tenth-grade home-school students, as a group, made an average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.

The fact is, on average, Home-schooled children are better educated than their Public School Peers, as evidenced by numerous studies on the subject, both from home-school advocacy groups, and by the various State Departments of Education. This academic aptitude results in a very high rate of acceptance into college and university programs, even, sometimes, at an accelerated age.

2. Home-schooled children are not neglected or disadvantaged socially.

Most families who choose to home-school their children are very active outside the home and make opportunities to practice social skills. Home-school parents have more natural opportunities to coach their children on social skills, and home-schooled children have more opportunities to relate to people of all ages, rather than only being isolated with twenty-five people their age in a classroom, and simply told to sit still. Many children, for example, may find a small home-schooled physical education class easier to adapt to than a public school class with all of its social distractions and disturbances. 

There are numerous sport or other social activities that are available to home-school children, even in most school districts, the ability to join sports teams or gym classes

Organizing social activities takes time, and some families, in some places, do struggle to avoid isolation, but even in these cases, enrolling a student in public school does not guarantee good social skills, a good social life, or good friends, either. As one mother said of her children's experiences in public school, "They don't really get social skills at school, and what they do get, I find to be negative." Examples of this abound, from grade school drug epidemics, to gang activity starting at ever younger ages, or as simple as social reinforcement of behavior that would be addressed as rude or inappropriate if addressed by a responsible adult. With their parents so often at their side, home-schooled children were able to see what good manners and self-confidence looked like, rather than be forced to adopt the jungle code of the average high school corridor.

By and large, it has been my observation and experience that home-schooled children grow up to be very polite and sociable, with the added benefit of being able to relate and interact with people outside of their own peer-group. They have fulfilling friendships, and have no social problems in day to day life, and have more experience in interacting in "the real world."

3. Parents do not only home-school "problem children" or children with learning disabilities.

Families will choose to undertake home-schooling their children for a variety of reasons, often something as simple as wanting to provide the best educational experience available. Many parents, in fact, come up against the opposite problem, that their child is learning faster than the classroom environment can provide new material. Many parents find it difficult or impossible to get the public education system to skip their child ahead a grade, or to skip subject levels they have already mastered, and don't want their child held back, or dumbed-down, just to keep up with an arbitrary age based curriculum system.

Other Parents simply want to be more involved with their children, and spend more time with them, something that can hardly be put in the realm of "neglect." One parent I know works long hours, and only has time off during the week, he says that if he didn't home-school, he would never see his own children. Instead, they do schoolwork the hours that he works, at home, and they take their days off together as a family. 

It is true that some parents can become frustrated by the public schools inability to address specific difficulties their child may experience, in a group setting, and choose to address those issues at home, in a one on one setting, but the majority of home-schooled children have no educational or behavioral problems, and shouldn't be treated any different than an average child coming from public school.

4. The Parents of home-schoolers are not all "Religious Zealots" or members of some "Lunatic Fringe."

Homeschooling families come from all walks of life, and can fit nearly as many descriptions as could be applied to parents of children in public schools, with, perhaps one exception. None of them can be called "uninvolved." 

There is no leader, and no reigning ideology that home-school parents must follow. For example, the Home School Legal Defense Association, despite its energetic lawyers and many admirers, is not the leader of home schooling in this country. Instead there a number of children whose families want them to learn at home for many different reasons, often having little to do with religion or politics.

The stereotypical image of home-schoolers as lockstep religious conservatives quickly falls apart when you discover that some of these parents have been shunned by their fundamentalist churches for teaching their kids at home rather than sending them to the church's school, and for many many parents, religious concerns play little to no part in their choice to become more involved in their children's educational process. As I have already mentioned, there are many reasons a parent would choose to home-school their children and those parents come from many different perspectives and backgrounds. 

Perhaps the most telling example I can think of is the sheer number of Public School Teachers who chose to home-school their own children. As one teacher, Maureen, volunteered apologetically: "I didn't want my children to be treated the way I treated some kids," She has a B.A. in psychology and a B.Ed. qualifying her as a teacher and has 13 years experience teaching in a public elementary school in Vancouver. She doesn't say this to claim that she was mean or uncaring, but says that in order to run a class with so many children, she had no choice but to engage in some form of manipulation, however subtle and well-intentioned it was. A desire to provide a better environment for her children why she now home-schools her two daughters. And its not just teachers, as there are several Public and Private school Principles who also chose to home-school their children, in addition to the scores of parents from every conceivable public and private background.

To assume someone is a religious fundamentalist or a member of some anti government political fringe, just because they chose to home-school their children is simply ignorant and is not borne out at all by the facts.

As a long time advocate of Home-school, and having been home-schooled myself, I hope this information helps you in understanding the reality of the present state of homeschooling in the United States, and contributes to your office's sensitivity in the future.

The basic idea to be considered can be boiled down to who cares more about a child's learning, than their own parents? Regardless of the situation or your staff's understanding of the issues at hand, no one has the right to insult a parent for doubtlessly doing what they feel is best for their children. 

Thank you for addressing this,

R. Franz.

Hippocratic Oafs

Poison your child or we will take your child from you.

Submit to the taking of your child, or we will imprison you. 

Submit to imprisonment, or we will kill you.

In the Police State, the penalty is always death, and the choice is never yours.

Submit, or die.

In what seems mostly oddly comparable to the biblical story of Abraham and Issac, a Judge in Minnesota has ordered a 13 year old boy's parents to resume submitting him to chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkin's Lymphoma, despite the fact that neither the boy, nor his parents feel that is best for him, or his health. If Anthony and Colleen Hauser refuse to sacrifice little Danny Hauser to illustrate their obedience to the all-knowing State, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg states that the boy will be taken from his parents custody, and will consider charging them with Medical Neglect. Of course, unlike the biblical fable, the government is unlikely to say "just kidding" at the last minute. These tests of faith are for keep.

The boy, Danny, had completed one course of chemo, which the parents felt they were coerced into accepting, and decided after seeing the side effects of chemo treatment firsthand, that they would explore other treatments available to them. They stated through their court appointed lawyer that they felt that "the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time,"

Danny himself is vehemently opposed to the treatment, stating in his court testimony that he believes the chemo will kill him, and said: "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

After that initial treatment, the Hausers decided they wouldn't subject Danny to any more chemo without his consent, and began to explore other treatment options, include homeopathic and native American methods. The doctor who administered the Chemo was concerned by this, and contacted the County Prosecutor's office, who asked a judge to intervene. He did.

A large segment of the alternative cancer treatment crowd feels that Hodgkin's lymphoma has a very high success rate with non-chemo treatments, but medical experts offered their opinion that without Chemotherapy treatment Danny has a 95% chance of dying. (I didnt even go to med school, but im fairly confident that the actual chance of mortality is somewhat closer to 100%, in all cases.) But they made no mention of the fact that when Danny orriginaly went to the doctor, he could barely breath, and now (despite suffering from a Deep Vein Thrombosis that appeared in his arm immediately following the initiation of chemo) he claims to feel just fine, much better than he did immediately after the treatment.

A court-appointed attorney for Daniel, Philip Elbert, called the judge's decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said Friday. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

Which, of course is the legal precedence that is set forth here, that the government and its approved sources of information are better qualified that you to make personal decisions involving your health, or that of your child. The money quote from the judgement was that the state has demonstrated "a compelling interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override fundimental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel" 

While many people claim that the chemotherapy in question might help Danny overcome his illness, none are willing to state that the chemotherapy will not hurt him, and this is where the Hauser family comes to odds with contemporary popular opinion, as they don't believe it is ever acceptable to cause harm to another human being, without that beings explicit permission. In essence, they have their own, voluntary, Hippocratic Oath, and they meant to keep it. The government, of course, borne out of the concept of "the greater good," has no such compunction, feeling that no sacrifice is too great, as long as it receives benefit from it in the end. Perhaps the profit seeking medical industry has adopted the same outlook, in search of profits. 

A commenter on one story I read has accepted this judgement with blind faith in science, without ever having looked at it himself. Not very scientific of him, I don't think, but i think this is how the majority of public opinion swings, today. Accepting the opinion of "Great Authority" without qualification, or their own understanding of the moral issues at hand. This great vox populi stated:

Jonathan May 17

The only choice is between Scientifically proven methods or Voodoo. Of course it is child abuse when parent such as this and the last commentator continue to try and cure their children with voodoo. Ignorance is not an excuse.

I think scientifically proven is a bit of an unfounded statement there, isn't it Johnathan? It is proven, I mean there were studies right? they must have proved them, after all. Yes, of course. But proven to do what?

It is proven to Kill cellular tissue, as most poisons of that type will, and in certain types of tumor, it is proven to reduce tumor size by a statistically significant amount in a statistically significant segment of a test group.

That is it. It does not say it will cure cancer, no one has ever claimed it will, and most people who undergo chemotherapy eventualy die of cancer. (I'd venture that the majority of those who dont, die in auto-accidents and by suicide, if not complications from the immune system crushing that is chemo.) There is no guarantee that it will even extend the life of the patient, and in some cases it will drastically reduce it.

And that is to say nothing of what is "proven" in the way of the worst side effects of any drug still allowed on the market.

In essence, all that is proven 100% of the time, is that the outcome will be a crap shoot, and the experience painful and miserable. In the case of something that benefits a percentage of individual patients, but harms 100% of patients, human judgement must be used to figure out if that particular case would be better served by the application of treatment or not.

A child is not a statistic, and neither is any other patient. It might be proven to statistically improve a percentage of patients, but those statistics are only designed to guide the judgement of applicability to the INDIVIDUAL case. This is why, in the US, which is one of the heaviest pro-chemo medical industries in the world, still does not prescribe chemo in 100% of cancer cases.

It is only after the consideration of the type and stage of the cancer, as well as the general health and age of the patient that many sufferers of cancer are told by their doctors, that chemo treatment is not advisable, and that they should go home.

In the case of an individual, these choices are recommended by the doctor and the final decision is made by the patient. In the case of a child, who is better able to make these judgements than the parent who knows the child, and is responsible for looking for their well being?

The choice presented isnt as was stated, between "proven science and voodoo" it is between something that may help, with blind luck, but is guaranteed to simultaneously create great suffering, and something that may also help, but also, and more importantly to at least these parents, will not hurt the child.

This decision is to be made as a judgement call, and not by statistical analysis, or it would have to treat every case of gran mal seizures with a hemispherectomy, no matter that the treatment could be as simple as a mild anti convulsant. It is a parent's right to do what they think is best for their child, especially when the alternative can be nothing but suffering, and a painful, hairless, vomiting death.

Well, Johnathan, if ignorance is not an excuse, what is yours?

And what is the state's excuse, and you, Doctor, what is yours?

Perhaps you forgot this portion of your precious oath: 

"Above all, I must not play at God."

How quickly we forget.

If you would like to read more about Danny Hauser's case, and the judge that ruled neither he nor his parents have say over what is done with his body, you can, here 

Revive or Expire.

From my reading today, which has made me tired, and I fear, none the more optimistic:

"They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. [...] But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782.

Also, on an almost unrelated note, is it just me, or does the new Star Trek Film make it seem like there will be little to zero improvement in the quality of life in the US in the year 2258, despite huge improvements in energy and construction technology, along with the opening of the interstellar raw material locker? Outside of Starfleet, (and possibly the police force) all I saw was some flashing lights to distract the kiddies while they were away from their studies and labors. Hell, the only nice things I saw on earth, that wasnt owned by the government, were antiques. Good lot that says for the fate of liberating technology. Now mind you, Im not taking the scenery in some Hollywood flick as prophesy of the future, but Star Trek itself was born out of the idea of showing the full potential of humanity, and as anyone who has ever watched "How William Shatner Changed the World" knows, it inspired a good number of great minds to reach for that envisioned potential. This... This is mindless distractions and college barfights and dirty dockworkers paying god knows what in taxes to build the most expensive versions of the USS Ronald Reagan ever conceived. 

As Yeats said: "How far away the stars seem."

Im going to bed.