Ontem no Rio de Janeiro…

Um turista americano passeia com o intérprete no Rio, e de repente aparece um assaltante:
–Perdeu. Vai passando aí…
–Whu’d he say?
–O cliente quer saber o significado daquilo que o senhor falou.
–Sim, pois, veja bem. Sem contexto não dá para fornecer uma resposta precisa e que vá necessariamente se encaixar. Contexto é rei. No mundo da terminologia, ao qual a tradução é estritamente ligada, os termos só existem se aparecerem em contexto. Palavras soltas podem levar a inúmeros erros de interpretração.
–Why’d you shoot my interpreter?
–Senti pena de você mané, e te fiz esse favor. Giívi maney nau.
Essa última parte o turista entendeu. Aliviado, passou a carteira pro bom malandro.


Willingness is wealth

1944refugeesThink about it. Hardly anyone notices little words like “Free,” “Freedom,” “Happiness,” and “willing” when they show up in important government-defining documents. But everyone is starting to notice the lines at immigration and visa services to flee countries that lack them. Let’s have a look at a few.

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights that Patrick Henry insisted be added to the Constitution protects freedom of religion. This is different from religious coercion practiced for millennia in Europe and right this very minute wherever Mohammedans and prohibitionist Christians control government. Laws against birth control, firearms, condoms, health inspections, pregnancy termination, enjoyable drugs, beer, spirits and wine are all popular with deeply mystical people who fail to notice or understand that the word “Freedom” in the first Amendment means the absence of coercion.

The Second Amendment is only concerned with a Free State, not a communo-fascist variant of socialism or mixed-economy dictatorship. Here again, “free” is different from coerced by initiation of force, and it makes sense. The idea of coercing people who are free to arm themselves whenever that seems wise is easily understood to be a bad idea. Both amendments preclude the government from having power to pass laws sending men with guns out to force religious prohibitions on people or stop them from arming themselves to counter and repel such force.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of rightsmoral claims to freedom of action–which governments are instituted to preserve. The function of law and justice is to stop those who renounce freedom from coercing or killing those of us who value life and freedom.

Finally, the Law of supply and Demand is not legislated with police or guns–at least not in a free country. Modern reformulations of it by mystical conservatives invariably contrive to efface and delete the most important single word in Adam Smith’s formulation:

The market price of any particular commodity is regulated by the proportion between the quantity which is actually brought to market, and the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity, or the whole value of the rent, labour and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither. (Wealth… Canaan edition p. 61)

The word, of course, is willing. Willingness is the prime mover of all trade and production, and it negates threats and weapons–except those necessary to secure the right to live your happy life of liberty. In other passages Professor Adam Smith spoke of the “eagerness of this competition.” People do not have to be threatened with weapons or forced to do things they are willing, nay, eager to do to in the first place. Folks are willing and eager to do things that will bring them thriving health, comfort and happiness (eudaimonia). Wealth follows willingness so closely as to qualify as an inductively true premise. “All men are mortal,” and “willingness is wealth” are true because no exceptions can be found. In the business world this asset is called “goodwill.”

So if men with guns are unnecessary except to prevent aggression (the initiation of force) from violating your rights, why do altruistic conservatives, progressives and socialists so insistently cast about for pretexts to justify the initiation of force? What standard of value demands that freedom, rights and happiness be sacrificed—thrown away and replaced with coercion, threats and misery? By what standard are thriving and happiness bad, selfish, evil things? What makes  deprivation the good to be forced on us? How did altruistic conservatives, progressives and socialists find out that they are the better people who know what’s good for the riffraff? And why do people flee in leaky boats from looter kleptocracies inspired–with no exceptions–by the ethical precepts of altruistic collectivism?

Gambling on elections?


Visit bitterempire.com on Shakespeare and hemp

Persuasion master Donald Trump has, according to trained hypnotist Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, fissioned into two personae. Redneck Trump, The Don, is the loudmouthed, life-begins-at-erection jerk so inspiring to teevee viewers who have never cracked a book. Centrist Trump is a serious, shape-shifting, non-dogmatic debater able change his mind to fit evidence and no longer convinced women must be threatened with criminal liability and forced at gunpoint to reproduce.**

Trump’s businesslike response to loss of female customer base reveals The Don as someone able to think on his feet and adjust to measurements and feedback from reality. The shift also signals to captains of banking and industry that Trump is not just another prohibitionist baboon eager to embark on a campaign of “concurrent” state and federal prohibition enforcement. The last such campaign completely wrecked the home loan industry via civil asset forfeiture of subprime-market grow houses in states where marijuana is illegal. The crash drove money out of banks and securities markets, causing a Herbert Hoover/George Bush liquidity crisis and depression.

Trump’s pre-Indiana transformation from bigot to grownup is lost on primary-voting morons. But the holy roller and televangelist candidates peddling fetus forfeiture laws to please “Warriors For the Babies” are already off the chessboard with no turning back. Casino owners think in probability terms, so the probability spread Trump needs to overcome today is 0.42 in a zero-sum game. To shift five points Trump needs the support of a sophisticated, literate crowd–the support of men of culture, means and learning capable of reaching back to their preppie days and grasping an analogous situation–not from Gilligan’s Island or Bonanza, but from Stratford-upon-Avon, where “liberal” stands for low-tax laissez-faire worldliness. When educated men are confronted with the apparent reformation of a wily rogue, what comes to mind?

So, when this loose behaviour I throw off
And pay the debt I never promisèd,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
–Prince Harry in Henry IV Part 1, or
–Donald Trump in Republican primaries?

1932banksuspensionsGOP heavies realize that as reason replaces faith in These States, superstitious prohibitionists whose policies cause depressions have become a political liability–as in the campaign of 1932. They also realize that pro-choice LP spoiler votes have cost them many seats. So what would explain the GOP’s expense and effort of creating the antiabortion Tea and Constitution Parties to replace the Prohibition Party as its eminence grise, and recent dogged infiltration of the LP by starry-eyed YAFfers in Ron Paul T-shirts?


Dilemma 1: What if two can play? What if an anti-choice “libertarian” candidate were to surf in on a wave of turncoat GOP/YAF rats abandoning the floundering prohibitionist hulk, and secure the Libertarian nomination? Suppose the candidate, like Trump, were to suddenly decide that women are individuals, just like the Constitution and the laws say they are? What if Austin Petersen is not a fifth-column mole sent in to transform the LP into a fifth antichoice party? Suppose Petersen, like Trump, is poised to abandon the initiation of force and–reformation glittering over fault–realize that women, pregnant or not have the same individual rights as men?

The GOP has nothing to lose, but is bait-and-switch a gamble worth taking for a rising party that has already achieved constitution-changing spoiler vote clout?

Dilemma 2: What if an angry GOP wants to temporarily replace the Prohi, Tea and other antichoice parties with a compliant, woman-menacing LP, and eliminate future LP competition by wrecking our credibility?

If the Libertarian party were to join the Prohibition Party’s plank reassigning women a condition of involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments, that would forever relegate us–with that Prohibition Party and its Republican, Tea and “Constitution” party clones–to the dustbin of history.

Safer to stick with Gary Johnson, whose two terms as Governor of NM have done him proud, and whose past campaign–whatever its weaknesses–brought us an uptick in hefty, law-changing spoiler votes with no disasters. Gary has become important enough in American politics to even pop up on Google’s radar. Check it out… Compare the comments on him to the comments on Trump, Hillary and the DemoGOP in general before you vote.

** Gary Johnson, as a partially-born semilibertarian candidate in 2012 also believed the Political State should send jackbooted minions to frogmarch physicians off to prison, leaving women to bleed out from coathanger abortions. By 2016 Johnson became a supporter of Roe v. Wade–which was copied from the 1972 Libertarian Party platform.

Need translations of barbarian laws from primitive dictatorships and bandana republics?


Political results of Republican fetus-forfeiture


Fig. 1 –Why Republicans keep losing

Let’s look at the record, as Al Smith used to say. Starting with the antiabortionists, here follow their statements and odds of getting elected.

Sarah Palin, October 22, 2008: “I’ve always had near and dear to my heart the mission of protecting the sanctity of life and being pro-life, a hardcore pro-lifer, but I think this opportunity for me to really be walking the walk and not just talking the talk.” Odds: zero

John McCain, August 16, 2008: A baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate.” Odds: zero

Jeb Bush, Nov. 1, 2015: “My views haven’t changed. I believe in the exceptions of rape and incest and the life of the mother, of course.” Odds: zero

Ben Carson, Nov 25, 2015: Q: Definitively, do you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned? CARSON: I would love to see it overturned. Odds: 119-712 to 1 against

Carly Fiorina, Sep. 27, 2015: Q: In 2010, in your Senate race, you called Roe v. Wade a decided issue. You have since said you would work to overturn it. What changed your mind? FIORINA: Well, we are finding common ground. People’s views evolve on all kinds of things. Odds: zero

Lindsey Graham, Aug. 6, 2015: I don’t think it’s a war on women for all of us as Americans to stand up and stop harvesting organs from little babies. Odds: zero

John Kasich, Aug. 16, 2015: Q: You’re pro-life? A: Right. Odds: 48-835 against

Marco Rubio, Aug. 9, 2015: I’ll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions. Odds: 76-949 to 1 against

Donald Trump, “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. (Translation: Point guns at doctors, not pregnant women) Odds: 7/4 to 13/5 against.

The 422-word GOP platform position–a paean to the equivalence of many words and many lies–reads a lot like a fetus forfeiture bill: The Reich owns that potential Lebensborn taxpayer-trainee, but the owner of the individual female body it occupies is condemned to forced labor and involuntary servitude, no compensation, threats of criminal liability, Thirteenth Amendment be damned. This is exactly the pattern of law pushed by Bush Senior and George W. Bush. Citizens take out a home or auto loan, the Prohibitionist Theocracy declares the property suspect, State and local police confiscate it for their private club expenses and the owner of the property, now homeless or afoot, still has to pay off the mortgage or auto loan. Of course with asset forfeiture the economy collapses, exactly as under Rumanian communism. With fetus forfeiture the economy collapses because Germanic nationalsocialism is a lot like Rumanian communism.

To deflect attention from this added trampling of the Constitution, mystical conservatives misdirect attention to the 1776 Declaration. Religious conservatives seize upon Jefferson’s use of “self-evident” as the legal enshrinement of Divine Revelation as the foundation for legal jurisprudence, when in fact the Declaration has no force of law. The phrase “endowed by their creator” is blithely interpreted as absolute proof of the existence of a deity undetectable by modern physics. But most exciting of all is the word “life,” which to Christian and Mohammedan religious fundamentalists alike is code for singling out individual women to serve as breeding dams–by forcible impregnation if need be, in a Jihadist-Crusader fetus forfeiture program.

“Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” are completely meaningless to the blinkered conservative mind. Then again,  “shall not be abridged” is as blankly meaningless to worshippers of communism and the progressive income tax. Theirs is a competing and blasphemous Revealed Faith in which any body of ruffians able to seize a monopoly on the initiation of force become, in effect, the equals of Allah or Yaweh, not His vassals.

So if the Thirteenth Amendment–the one forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude–is to be cavalierly swept aside, what of the Fourteenth? This is the Amendment that spelled out clearly in its first three words (All persons born…) that nobody–not even Saracen blackamoor women–can be bought and beaten, raped and enslaved as they were, by tradition and with the blessings of Congress and the Supreme Court, in These States in 1860. Now that Congress is packed with Republicans, has it become more trustworthy? No.


Fig. 2 –Trust in Republican-controlled Congress

But elections are all about choice, so let’s look at the competition.

Bernie Sanders, Sep. 5, 2015: Bernie believes in protecting a woman’s right to choose and has a lifetime pro-choice record. (Don’t coerce doctors or pregnant women, except by taxation and cartel pricing laws).  Bernie’s odds range from 28 to 43 to 1 against.

Hillary is as incapable of making a declarative statement as Mitt Romney, so her evasions add nothing to the platform. Odds: 3 to 1 FOR.

Clearly the betting odds–mathematics uncolored by ideological bias–favor the Democratic Party. We therefore cut to the 2012 Democratic plank on abortion, only a third the size of its rambling and disjointed competitor:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

The first 20 words of that would make a really nice Libertarian Party platform. Deleting our present cowardly straddle plank would also work. I just read Canada’s Libertarian Party Platform and the word abortion appears nowhere in it. Best to let them explain their own system of laws and rights:

Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has NO criminal law restricting abortion at all. We first liberalized our law against abortion in 1969; then our Supreme Court threw it out completely in 1988. And we’ve been doing just fine without it.

See that? People from all over the world line up to apply for visas to live and work in Canada, even if it means tramping through snow. And Canada has a remarkably stable economy compared to countries run by mystical fanatics. Clearly there is nothing wrong with skipping the abortion plank entirely if your constituents are overwhelmingly for safe, legal abortion. The Libertarian party contains less superstition, fewer lawyers and a larger percentage of scientists and engineers than any U.S. Party. We don’t elect all that many politicians, but we change A LOT of laws. Visit LP.org and see for yourself.


Incompetent Interpreters in Ingland

Transperfect, The Big Word fail. Why? Because the courts needed wanted trained performers, not stuffed sausage off an assembly line. Story in the Guardian

Corporations crammed with vice-presidents and cajoling telephone secretaries are inefficient providers of highly skilled, interactive legal interpreting services. The sort of people able to think on their feet have too much self respect to grovel and urinate for a chance to work cheaply. But companies have to “deliver,” right? No delivery, no income; soooo… in come the impostors, as explained by this corporate spokesman.

Has anyone bothered to read what sort of terms and conditions any of those packing-plant “translater” operations makes people sign? The Big Word is a condescending faceless corporation patterned after an Asian dictatorship. Transperfect also requires signatures on documents incompatible with individual rights, to say nothing of professional self-respect, ability, self-confidence and honor.
Until such time as Her Majesty’s courts take the trouble to search professional association rolls for people who have passed simple interpreting or translation certification tests (in both directions) instead of letting themselves be gulled and seduced by smarmy corporate hustlers, the ends of justice will suffer from the effect of their dereliction.

King Ted Cruz of Amerida

tedhellIt was around the turn of the other century, before the voyage of the Titanic, when these words were recorded:

“Well, sir,” said Mr. Dooley, “onaisy lies th’ crown on anny king’s head these days. Th’ time was whin it was me ambition or wan iv thim to be a king. Arly in life I’d committed the youthful folly iv bein’ born outside iv th’ counthry an’ so I cuddent be Prisidint. But it don’t make anny diff’rence what counthry a king comes from so long as he don’t come fr’m th’ counthry where he’s king.” (Thanks to Gutenberg.org, where donations are welcome)

Even back in them heathen times before the Bolsheviki foisted their income tax on America with 0.1% of the popular vote, saloonkeepers read and understood the Constitution:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

This is bad news for Ted Cruz, for the Finian invasion failed to conquer godless Canada and bring her into the fold of civilization. But SNL’s airing of Amerida back when the Democratic Party was chaired by Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, raised the spectre of a Canadian invasion and conquest of These States. Despite his rejection by a majority of Republican voters, Lying Ted could still wield political power. All it takes is a successful invasion.

And why not? Canada, after all, had no prohibition amendment or Herbert Hoover enforcement to reduce the nation to the Tommy-gun warfare of teetotalitarianism and the economic collapse attendant to such circumstances. Canada was herself invaded by American refugees from involuntary servitude back before there was a libertarian party anywhere. Surely we’d be better off under genuine laissez-faire liberals and pot-smoking, pro-choice low-tax Canook conservatives than in the fix we’re in now.

If Canada were to conquer These States, Lying Ted could become the God-Saven King of Amerida, and never raise enough votes in Parliament to even ban weed, birth control pills or 12% beer.

There would be malcontents, of course. Many a balding pate wrinkles in nostalgic disgust when recalling campaign promises that “laws against pornography are here to stay,” or prophesies that “homosexuals will always be arrested and branded as felons.” But hark! Those cherished ideals are kept alive in the former Ottoman Empire and parts of the Former Soviet Socialist Republics. The best part is that those countries lack The Wall to keep out the huddled masses of Positive Christianity’s conservatives, yearning to breathe waterboarding and pining for them Old Time Religious laws.

Birth control and contraception are now as Verboten and Haraam in the Islamic State as they were in These States under the smug ministrations of the Prohibition Party (as interpreted into jurisprudence by the DemoGOP) in the 1920s. Former ‘Murrican Malcontents for Mohammed could form their own faction under Sharia law. Mohammedans right this very minute enforce their Republican Sharia Laws banning and prohibiting intoxicants and driving up prices fourfold on the black market. Girls bought and sold in the public square can be stoned to death in that same square for so much as peeking through their balaklavas at a coathanger, so staunchly is the “life begins at erection” position ingrained over there. (Al-Qur’an 6:151)

Lying Ted for Monarch! The Libertarian Party of Canada could gain a majority in Parliament before the end of Ted’s benevolent reign. The biggest problem for the Holy Monarch would be those pesky 50% of the Canadian population who, despite being women, are so infatuated as to imagine themselves clothed in individual rights.

Diamonds and reproductive rights

USGOPAnyone can walk into a pawnshop or jeweler’s, buy a diamond, hike up a volcano and throw that valuable diamond into the burbling lava, never to be recovered again. To the horrified gasps of the majority of onlookers, libertarians argue that that is the owners right. You may destroy your own diamond even if someone else does not like the idea–even if that someone else is willing to hire someone to pick up a gun and point it at you and threaten to kill you if you try to throw away the diamond. The menacing initiation of force is far, far worse. It is the anti-life.

Yet there is no bill in Congress to send men with guns to stop the hurling of valuable diamonds or gold into volcanoes or the ocean. Why?

Vegetarians often argue that animals have a right to life and that politicians must send men with guns to shut down packing plants and hamburger joints to stop what they view as senseless killing. Yet Congress passes no such law. Why?

dearshooterIn the first case, nobody throws valuable property away precisely because it is valuable. Values are what sane people act to gain and keep with no prodding or threats needed.  In the second case, even if some politicians felt inclined to agree that vegetarianism is a good thing, they also have sense enough to realize that sending men with guns out to coerce peaceful people definitely, always, results in people getting killed.

Most Congressmen also understand that shutting down food supplies while 22800 people a day are added to the world’s population–most of them in backward, superstitious countries where women have about the same rights as cattle–is absolutely guaranteed to lead to the widespread looting, violence and death recorded throughout history and explained in population biology textbooks. The only ethical systems that value looting, violence and death are mystical forms of altruism. And before 1972, all anarchists were proud to be included in the communist/socialist set of mystical altruist totalitarians.

Yet large segments of the population have been programmed to believe that Congress must pass laws forcing women to reproduce. Someone named Harlos, a self-described anarchist posing as a libertarian, argues with a perfectly straight face that we must send men with guns out to force women to reproduce all the way up to the last day. Why? Because rabidly insane mystics are able to invent hypotheticals to which “it’s your choice” would sound distasteful to a hypothetical “majority.” (I can recall a time when rational people didn’t expect suicidal mystics to hijack planes and fly them into crowded buildings, much less come up with arguments that dumb).

But anarchism is the doctrine that all laws against rape and murder must be repealed along with the governments that enforce them. Anarchists continue to infiltrate the LP–as they did during the brinkmanship standoff with communism–for purposes of tearing down freedom and strengthening totalitarianism.

If anarchist values weren’t utter nihilistic nonsense, they’d start their own political party and gather zero votes. Instead they try to infiltrate and ruin somebody else’s successful movement to repeal precisely the bad laws and taxes anarchists pushed as their agenda from 1848 to 1972.

The bottom line is that women, pregnant or not, are individuals endowed with inalienable individual rights. This is spelled out in the 14th Amendment added to the Constitution to stop coercion by ku-klux rapists–rapists appalled by the realization that they could no longer keep women as chattel slaves. It says: “All children born…” not “All ova fertilized…”  Surely this is no more complicated or difficult to understand than “shall not be infringed.”

The Nigerian Constitution says no such thing. Nor do the Iranian, Iraqui, Persian, Italian, Serbian, Syrian or Spanish constitutions. Some of those nations even allow the sale and purchase of  girls as rightsless creatures. If women without individual rights is what antiabortionists want, These States are not the place for them, nor is the Libertarian Party going to be their instrument for the destruction of individual rights.