Stossel mentions that we've become a Nation of Victims, with everyone believing that we're entitled to something. He rails against the greed of many lawyers and the abundance of too many lawsuits, suggesting that we adopt what the rest of the World uses: Losers pay. Possibly a good solution but to use Stossel's own methodology, this may hurt more people than help in that unless lawsuits have some kind of time element for resolution what's to keep a company on the apparent losing end of a lawsuit against a person just keeping the case going and going? Worse, a person battling a company had better have a damn perfect lawyer because one technical or procedural mistake and you're looking at paying a bevy of corporate lawyers, even though you may have won the case given a good lawyer. What's to keep the losing side from appealing and re-appealing?

At the end of the book Stossel poses two problems and solutions. The first is the above too many lawsuits. and the second problem is that of a bloated Government to which he suggests shrinking it but his suggestion is without analysis. Because he is against Government welfare - which creates a dependent class of unmotivated Americans, those departments that deal with such could be cut. I'm sure the Libertarians have a whole litany of what could go. But, again, there's two sides to this. Cut those departments and what happens to the millions out of work? How does this tackle the real problem of influence by lobbyists and cronyism? Most importantly, what incentive is there for those in power to make these changes? Look at Bush. Early first term, he talked about shrinking Government. Boom - 9/11 - and Bush creates the massive Department of Homeland Security. Face it -for all the rhetoric - neither Democrats nor Republicans will shrink Government anytime soon because growth of Government means growth of power and influence.

Despite my nitpicks, I liked the book. There was good food for thought. Take the simple question "Who owns your body?" Most people would answer that they do. If so, then you can do what you want to your own body, right? Get tattoos, piercings, hair dyed. Stossel mentions that it's his body. As long as he doesn't hurt anyone else, he should be able to use drugs and then he's off on a rant against the ineffective Drug War. I agree. It is my body. If I want to smoke, imbibe, inject, or snort that's my business. The Government doesn't need to protect us from us.

But if my body is my own, Stossel writes, don't I also have the right to end it? In a similar vein, I contend, then a woman has the right to abort. I contend that the country does not have the right to draft since we've never, ever given the country the rights to our body. Note that this isn't about Morality, it's about ownership. Occchh, I could go on and on. Find a copy of the book, read it, and THINK.

For more on John Stossel, check out his ABC page.

Bush and Accountability
As Bush seeks an additional $100 BILLION for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn't you agree it only fair that his Administration provide a full report of past monies spent before we give him more? He is our supreme public office holder beholden to - who? - the Public, us. It's our money that's being spent and we have a right to know where exactly it went. And who was it who crowed that the Iraqi War would cost about $60 billion because the Iraqi oil would pay for rebuilding the country? Now, I'm hearing that Iraq may end up costing close to 1 TRILLION dollars by the time we're through. Don't laugh. If Bush get's his $100 BILLION he would be a quarter way to a Trillion with four years to go in office. And whomever follows him in office may keep things going if Iraq isn't resolved by then.

And add to that the vision that we may be soon invading Iran. When you wonder why Johnny can't read and our technological and scientific lead in education has evaporated, just thank Georgy. And remember to keep a complete and utter Faith in God and to pay your taxes!!!

Step By Step
Small steps to bring about big changes. It worked for Hitler.

High Court Backs Use of Drug Dogs

Tue Jan 25, 7:55 AM ET

By David G. Savage Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Using a police dog to sniff a car's exterior for drugs does not violate the privacy rights of a stopped motorist, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, even if the officers had no reason to suspect the car or its occupants were carrying drugs.

Sigh. What next? A portable car X-Ray?

Wouldn't it be funny if someone created "Eau de Cannabis" so we could all smell like the Evil Weed? (Hey! My idea - I want 10%).