on the necessity of Union

  When the Declaration of Independence was written, and its sister document, the Constitution, the need for Union among the States was great. Joined in Union, the States proved better able to effect their independence, and to stand strong collectively, a dozen-odd entities working together against the many pressures that faced our young nation as it fought to make a place for itself in the world and to prove that its shockingly progressive ideals had merit.

  Then, halfway through the 19^th century, divergent forces and interests among the States compelled them to split apart in the attempt to form two separate nations, one seeking to maintain large numbers of slaves, the other seeking to maintain the Union. Whole populations that no longer felt that they should be following the same path rose up in conflict, two seemingly foreign peoples that understood that they had grown simply too far apart in thought and in method to be able to stay together. In those times of relative national weakness and persistent internal turmoil, the Union held; it has held through two world wars, scores of other undeclared wars, and rapid and widespread cultural and societal transformations both here and abroad.

  Today, however, we have witnessed the ascendancy of a federal supremacy over the states, and within that supremacy the elevation of the executive branch (in clear violation of the checks and balances built into the Constitution), as well as growing divergences between the citizens who live in roughly the same areas as those that split asunder in the 1860s. Two loose but still recognizable camps have formed in this nation, with millions of voters hovering at varying degrees around the edges of each, one camp calling for more punitive and dogmatic responses to our problems, a camp that relies on the gullibility of the masses for the propagation of its conservative views on religion and society, the other camp one that strives at least superficially for rational debate, the reinstatement of the constitutional right to liberty, and a more compassionate and socialistic view of the role that government and society must play in the elevation of the American People and the bringing about of Their Safety and Happiness. (It would be convenient to suppose that I am here referring to Republicans and Democrats respectively, but as these parties have become the necessary repositories of most anyone seeking political office, their ranks are as varied in their opinions as is the greater population, which is split roughly between liberals and conservatives, i.e. between those who seek to propagate liberty through rational debate and those who seek to maintain the status quo through Fear Of The Unknown and an inflexible mind-set. In my opinion, debate and rational thinking are essential to the propagation of liberty, as the concept of liberty presupposes that the individual is capable of deciding for himself how best to lead his life; it demands of him that he understands the consequences of his actions and allows him to decide to live a virtuous life devoid of privations against the life, liberty, or property of his fellow persons.)

  Perhaps it would be best, then, in this time of America's military supremacy around the world (when no danger is clear and present enough to enact its total destruction), in this era of seemingly irreconcilable rhetoric and clear societal, moral, and religious divergence, to conclude with this chapter of our experiment and, as the Union of all States is no longer absolutely necessary for the basic preservation of our nation, to allow those portions that wish to pursue their own course to secede.

  Since our country's inception, we have added a good number of states, in locations sometimes far-flung from our original borders, that by their isolation are seen even now as foreign and distant lands and peoples whose primary binding characteristic is the feeble footprint of the homogenized corporate retail location. In the interest of Domestic Tranquility, it would be better to allow those who wished to establish a religious and socially conservative nation where they might better keep the ignorant in Fear, a place where the individual would not have the right to decide for herself how to affect her body (by tattoo, weight-loss, or abortion), where the benefits of the joining of individuals in marriage or civil union would be bestowed only according to the writings of a specific religious text, where a specific language were declared officially and a specific system of beliefs were recognized by all, unanimously, as the state religion.

  Perhaps the citizens of America should be asked directly if they feel that these two clearly divergent populations should become separate nations, an official poll to gauge the possibility of such a move, even an outright vote for their fragmentation and reintegration as separate nations according to the wishes of the respective majorities. (These new nations would have to be well-established, sovereign states with clearly demarcated borders, their constitutions well-written, with provisions in place for the unobstructed movement of goods and people between them, especially people who decide, within a set amount of time, that they had made a mistake and would like to switch nations.)

  The essence of liberty that flowered in America and in the world during the 1960s was stamped out here for a number of reasons, among them conservatism, Fear of the Unknown, war-mongering, and racism. Chief among these reasons, however, was the passage of legislation prohibiting the use, possession, and distribution of mood altering substances such as marijuana, legislation that to this day continues to violate the liberty of the American People by restricting their ability to obtain legally those substances that they deem would best assist them in their pursuit of Happiness.

  Until such time as the citizens of America are granted their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property; until such time as their right to abort unwanted fetuses and to use whichever substance they decide are best and to marry whomever they please; until such time as the citizens are entrusted fully with their unalienable right to choose for themselves how best to lead their lives and they regain the right to pursue their Happiness as they decide is best; until that time, liberty does not abide in these United States, and the rights enumerated in the Constitution are null and void.

  Certain constitutional protections (against unwarranted searches and seizures) continue to be violated courtesy of the Patriot Act. Similarly, enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act violates the individual's right to property (her body is her only true property). Since some of the most fundamental rights and protections our Constitution was supposed to provide continue to be withheld from the American people, we must assume that our Constitution is no longer functioning as intended, that is has morphed from a bedrock legal document into a nice thing to read on a sunny afternoon. With this our finest document already torn, tattered, and violated, with our most basic rights and protections reduced to the theoretical, we would do well to allow those seeking liberty to break off from those seeking to cling fearfully to the mistakes of the past, that a new Union based solidly on the principles set forth by our nation's forefathers might be formed, a new nation that would not rest until the Blessings of Liberty were guaranteed to all equally.

  Let the religious zealots thump their holy books and legislate according to their morality in their own nation while they funnel the wealth of their people into the pockets of the richest one percent. We rational, progressive, compassionate few, we who yearn for liberty, would like to treat our bodies and to pursue our Happiness as we see fit, our Safety protected by the might of the Declaration, our rights as enumerated in the Constitution immutable and unalienable now, and forever.

  Only through constant vigilance and rational foresight can we ensure Liberty and Justice for all. Stand up. Speak out. Demand your constitutional rights. We have not yet begun to fight.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

all equal under reason

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on mixing races

  When discussing the procreative mixing of the races of humankind among themselves, I have often heard said that the children of such unions are somehow inferior. Additionally, the following phrase is often used in context: "If god wanted the races to mix, he wouldn't have made them different," or something similarly absurd. (If you think that some specifically male god is tinkering with every aspect of your life, or that the Force That Cannot Be Conceivably Named only prefers people with a specific lack of melanin content in their skin, I suggest you read The Way Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, and switch your places and methods of worship.)

  Firstly, there are no distinct races among the many cultures of humankind, for we might all mate with one another and, so long as the mating is between a male and a female, produce viable and healthy offspring. (Nothing against homosexual mating – it simply produces no offspring. In fact, we find homosexuality in various species of animal, such as seagulls, porpoises, and certain primates [see here], which means that homosexuality is a natural condition of certain animals, humans among them.)

  Secondly, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that mixed-race children are in any sense inferior to their supposedly less-mixed counterparts. (Mainland Europe was invaded numerous times by strange and foreign tribes who passed along their genes to those exact people who now consider themselves, by some insane form of reasoning, somehow more pure than others.) American children of mixed race can in fact more easily find their place in our overly race-conscious society (see here), which, if anything, would indicate that they are more flexible and adaptable than individuals who are supposedly (but who only superficially appear to be) less mixed.

  Thirdly, recent scientific research into the genetic codes of various far-flung peoples suggests (see here) that the ancestors of all peoples, besides those residing in or otherwise stemming directly from sub-Saharan Africa, mixed with that supposedly separate race we know today as the Neanderthalers. Hence, indigenous sub-Saharan Africans are the only truly pure humans left on Earth – all others are descendent from troglodytes with thick foreheads, myself included. (Perhaps that is why I have such strong bones, pronounced eyebrows, and shifting tempers.)

  The human body is remarkably adept at shutting down and aborting the growth of invalid fetuses. Invalid fetuses are sometimes (see here) the result of too little genetic diversity between the genomes of the parents, not of too much genetic diversity. (If you want to bear valid offspring, find a person as far removed from yourself as is genetically possible and take them out to a nice dinner.)

  We can look at a number of populations throughout the world that show signs of significant genetic diversity (at least based on physical appearance). People in the Republic of Georgia, Afghanistan, and the other 'Stans (see here for a list, for pictures here and here) tend to exhibit the genetic telltales of the numerous invading armies that have over time passed through their lands. In these countries, you find individuals who have lighter skin and lighter hair related to individuals with darker hair and slanting eyes related to individuals with dark skin and significantly slanting eyes (I am not trying to be racist by using the term “significantly slanting eyes”). If there were something biologically wrong with the mixing of the races, the populations of the aforementioned countries would have either long ago died out, or we would be able to detect major and chronic diseases attributable solely to the (inherently racist) theory of genetic fouling through genetic mixing. (The infant mortality rates in these countries [see here, here] tend to be somewhat higher than those in the West due to insufficient medical care during and beyond pregnancy [no data – that one is deductive reasoning].) Based solely on the continued existence of the Afghan and Georgian peoples, we can now put to rest the idea that mixing among the races is in any way biologically unsound.

  If you do hear anyone implying that mixing the races is bad, kindly remind them that it is bad only in their own minds, that they are making assumptions based on ignorance and Fear of The Unknown, that by mixing with one another we are in fact broadening the strenght inherent to the genetic diversity of our children, and that Nature, in all her ingenuity, continues to prove them wrong.

Never rest. Always doubt. Demand liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

WTFWJD - driving

  I was behind a driver recently who was weaving all over the road, crossing over the double yellow line into oncoming traffic to avoid parked cars he was no way threatening to hit, with his entire arm out the window and generally not paying attention. When I snugged up behind him at a stoplight, I noticed he had a medallion of a Christian fish wherein was written the acronym, WWJD.

To answer this sage and perpetual question, I said to myself, what Jesus would do would be to: retain all limbs within the vehicle (as any limb located outside the vehicle is a limb that is likely to be ripped violently off the body); follow the rules of the road; drive like a gentleman; stay within the lines; wash his windows to maintain visibility; and generally respect the great responsibility and always-present dangers inherent to operating a motor vehicle.

Instead of gluing a piece of plastic to the back of your car and expecting it to eliminate the need to be kind, courteous, and self-respecting, I call upon the WWJD set to apply the guidelines set forth in their holiest of books to their everyday lives. It is not enough to browbeat or otherwise fear-monger people into worshiping the gods you worship; acting like good and upstanding citizens and operating according to the highest principles of your religion is far more likely to spread the word about your chosen god and to display the honor, self-respect, and virtuousness you can glean from your chosen teachings.

Remember: America was not founded as a Christian nation (see article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted by George Washington and released under John Adams), and its recognition as such would invalidate the essence of liberty by forcing her citizens to worship a god not necessarily of their choosing. Worship your gods as you see fit, but don't be too hard on those who don't share your sentiments, and don't try to tell them they are wrong in their beliefs. This is a nation of a million religions and a million points of view, where the liberty to decide for oneself how to live one's own life and what thoughts to entertain is a constitutionally-protected right.

So, what would Jesus do? For one, he probably wouldn't drive like a complete moron.  

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

revenue through regulation

  On Saturday last, on NPR, the topic of discussion revolved around allowing hunters in Pennsylvania (PA) to hunt on Sundays. Individuals representing the PA game commission and hunters' groups were in attendance, giving their opinions on the merits of Sunday hunting and debating the various statistics for and against this suggestion. One of the main arguments for Sunday hunting was that the increased activity and travel within and to the state would bring upwards of six hundred million dollars in revenues to the state coffers. During a segment in which the announcer read listener emails aloud, a commenter wisely stated that, since the state is currently facing bankruptcy, any revenue streams that could generate money for the state that did not in any demonstrable way cause harm to large segments of the population and that did not infringe upon the People's constitutional right to life, liberty, and property (their bodies), any such revenues are needed to keep the state afloat during these times of economic hardship.

  This is a solid argument based on the idea that, by licensing individuals to perform and engage in activities that bring them joy or satisfaction, and by said licensing to ensure that the People remain safe and secure in their person while not negatively affecting or otherwise infringing upon the rights of others, the People should be granted the ability to act in liberty and to enjoy those activities they wish to do while contributing to the economic well-being of the state as a whole.

  This argument also remains solid when applied to the concept of granting licenses to individuals who desire to cultivate and consume Mood Altering Substances in the privacy of their own homes. The legalization of the cultivation and consumption of marijuana, for example, by fully emancipated adults in the privacy of their homes who are not demonstrating a willingness or desire to harm others in any way, would: provide steady and reliable revenues to the state coffers through licensing and cultivation fees; reduce overall crime by limiting the power of organized criminal enterprise; decrease state expenditures on prisoner housing by eliminating roughly twenty percent of state prison populations that are made up of non-violent drug offenders (see here); lower the instances of gateway or crossover consumption by reducing the average, upstanding drug consumer's need to visit drug dealers to obtain the means by which he should decide to pursue his Happiness; and reinstate liberty to the American citizen by granting her that right that is enumerated in the constitution, and thus allowing her to take responsibility for her actions and to lead her life as she sees best fit so long as she is not infringing demonstrably upon the enumerated rights of others.

  Additional revenues can also be generated by placing a usage and manufacturing tax on individuals brewing, distilling, or consuming alcohol, a Mood Altering Substance that in its use is responsible for widespread physical harm and for various societal suffering, most notably assault, battery, rape, and otherwise violent and aggressive acts. We would do well to tax those who so brazenly tax our society with their consumption of alcohol.

  The commenter rightly stated that activities that do not threaten the well-being of others and that are well-managed and well-structured can provide revenue to the state, through licensing and fees, thus allowing the People to live their lives in liberty by the methods that to them shall seem most likely to affect their economic, spiritual, or bodily Happiness. Marijuana consumption in the United States has remained constant throughout the so-called War On Drugs (see here) over the last forty years, billions of dollars have been spent to restrict the People in their liberty, billions of dollars that could have been funneled into state and federal coffers through the legalized, taxed, and structured manufacture and distribution of the drugs Americans want to consume. Just as there are laws in place to assure that Mood Altering Substances (MAS) such as alcohol, tobacco, and coffee products are manufactured in ways that will not harm the consumer, the manufacturing processes of all other MAS must be regulated to ensure that the American citizen can access and consume whichever MAS he or she decides are best while being fully confident that those MAS are not contaminated with toxic or otherwise dangerous fillers.

  According to the Declaration of Independence (see here for the document you should read once a week), the purpose of government is to bring about the Safety and Happiness of the People. We already allow for the safe manufacture of certain MAS; let us now allow for the safe manufacture of all MAS, so as to satisfy the constitutional right of the People to be safe in the property (their bodies) while they are operating rationally under the liberty of thought and deed.

  If a person can be entrusted with the responsibility of handling and operating a weapon in areas where other people are present, that person should be entrusted with the responsibility of handling and consuming, in the privacy of their own home, whichever MAS they decide would serve them best.

  Give the people liberty, and they will prove that they are worthy of rational thought and virtuous action.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

everything you read

  On two separate occasions in the past few weeks, individuals responded to links I posted or blogposts I wrote with the phrase, “Don't believe everything you read on the internet.” This seems to be a phrase used frequently in sloppy attempts to disqualify or to otherwise call into doubt the veracity of the posted material, as I have seen it used to this purpose on other sites throughout the interwebs.

  While it is true that one should use caution when accessing the Terrestrial Interconnectivity Matrix, and that one should be critical of anything found thereon, I would like to ammend the aforementioned phrase to read thus: “Don't believe everything you read.” Just because something is printed on a physical medium does not mean it is true, unbiased, or based on solid and irrefutable evidence. Having studied statistics in college, I know that numbers can be skewed in most any direction to support most any sort of point. Having argued often with religious and social conservatives, I know that opinions are shaped by a myriad of influences from all types of media, and that opinions based on Fear Of The Unknown are more dangerous to the wellbeing of society than those based on rational and open-minded contemplation.

  The most effective way to foster open-mindedness and rational thinking is to read a breadth of differing opinions about a given subject, doubt the veracity of all those differing opinions, and then form one's own conclusions about the subject at hand based on the subtle truths that the mind inherently gleans from exposure to the differing viewpoints. No subject is completely black-or-white, and anyone attempting to portray it as such is likely trying to obfuscate certain aspects of that subject with which he or she agrees by damning those aspects with which he or she does not agree, so as to gain power or advantage.

  Throughout the millenia, strategists from unconnected regions and different time-periods have all pointed to one fundamental truth of warfare, or struggle: “Know your opponent” (see here, here). Refusing to read a book written by a presidential candidate because one cannot stomach that candidate's viewpoints, or dismissing an argument off-hand because one does not understand the argument, violates the fundamental rule of Knowing One's Opponent. To underestimate another person's viewpoints or opinions is to set oneself up for disaster, as one's personal biases will invariably fog up the mind and prohibit the effective application of one's own forces.

  Read everything avaiable, but doubt it all. No person and no organization is infallible, and nothing is set in stone.

  Open the mind. Defend liberty. Fight injustice.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on spamming

  As the writer of this blog, I have been trying to increase readership by using social media sites to improve traffic to my site. On the social media site facebook, I regularly post links to my blog so as to indicate to my friends that I have written something new that I feel they might enjoy reading, or that I think would make for an interesting conversation. Additionally, I sometimes post updates to my status telling people what I am doing or posting an idea or a saying I might have just developed.

  Thinking this type of behavior was acceptable, and not having been informed that the aforementioned activities (posting links to my own material, calling attention to my own actions or thoughts) was in any way frowned upon, I set up an account on reddit.com, where I proceeded to post links to my own material while also reading and voting on the links posted by others. Not long after starting with this self-promotion, however, did I receive a message from the staff at reddit.com telling me that, by posting links to my own material only, I was committing violations in spamming, and that the continued performance of these actions would lead to my account being closed and me being disqualified for membership with reddit.com.

I would like this blogpost to serve as a warning to all people who post links to their own material and to people who are not posting links to random or varied other material, even if they are also voting up or down or "liking" the posts of others: you might are likely guilty of spamming, even if your links receive positive feedback from the community and readers seem to be enjoying or at the least reading the material to which you link. If you do not regularly promote the work or content of others, you will likely be shut down for spamming, and attempts to self-promote or to promote your material in ways other than paid-for-advertising will likely result in you being asked to stop.

  The reason I acted the way I did on reddit was because it was exactly the same way I for years have been acting on facebook - drawing people's attention to things I enjoy, to things I make or create, to things I find funny - never even thinking that I was committing an offense or forcing people to consume my spam until a friendly administrator told me what I was doing. So educate yourself about the exact and often arbitrary parameters of the social sites to which you are submitting, readers, for if you do not pepper in the occasional link to someone else's page, you will be likely scolded for spamming on one site when the same activity is the order of the day on another.

  If doing things and then informing other people that you have done something constitutes spamming, then I am a spammer, and I will remain one.

場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

my hope lies in reason

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on nationalized religion

  In recent times, loud voices (here, here) have claimed that the creators of the American nation were influenced by Christianity, saying that because our founders were somehow influenced by that religion, that religion should enjoy a higher standing in society. Why these people cry so loudly is unclear (although they seem to be following a historical precedent – see here – by turning to religious hyperbole, xenophobia, and downright Fear), but I suspect that they are making so much noise to obfuscate the reality of the world they so dearly desire, a future fantasy of Dystopian proportions in which all religions but one are outlawed in America, all who fail to fall to their knees before the new national god or gods are beaten and incarcerated, and the liberty we hold so highly, the liberty guaranteed in our Constitution to all equally, shall be replaced by oppression generally and by intolerance for dissenting thought specifically. What other purpose could these people have for pushing for some form of recognition of Christianity as the official state religion than: to destroy the liberty of their fellow citizens; to favor one religious doctrine to the exclusion of all others; to punish non-believers for their lack of belief in one god among many gods; and to relegate those non-believers to the status of second- or third-class citizens for failing to follow one out of the many religions practiced by those flexible and profound individuals who founded these United States of America.

  Many times in its history has mankind attempted to make one religion the mandatory religion of all people. In each of these cases (England Reformation, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Afghanistan under the Taliban), the initial religious prohibitions were soon followed by widespread murder, looting, and other acts of Domestic Chaos as members of the newly-empowered religious class fanned out across the land to punish those unlucky people who did not meet the newly-established and painstakingly exacting standards of that specific religious teaching. (This potential threat to the Domestic Tranquility requirement set forth in the Constitution therefore makes any attempts to establish religious rule in America unjust and unconstitutional.) The leaders of America have shown a lack of respect for, and a lack of an even rudimentary knowledge of history in recent years by deciding to invade Afghanistan, a country that had previously withstood invasion by the Macedonians, the Persians, the British, and the Soviets; we hope that they will do some research into the realities of specific religious rule before passing any legislation based on religious texts, and we trust that they will be inclined to preserve the Contitution and to shield it from attacks by the intellectually stagnant and theocracy-minded quasi-patriotic forces active in society today. (We also hope our leaders will strike down existing laws such as those that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays in Pennsylvania, or the laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman, laws based not on a rational foundation but on writings from the biblical Old Testament, laws that violate the declared Rights of the individual to Liberty and to pursue whichever Happiness he or she decides is best.)

  To justify the claims that the founders of our nation were influenced by the Bible, our current religious extremists ( "No religion is free from extremism," declares Abdelfattah Amor, the UN's Special Rapporteur n Religious Intolerance; for examples see here and here) point to correspondences and other writings created by the founders of this nation that mention the teachings of Christianity (for examples of these writings, see here). Furthermore, they point to the establishment of the Mayflower Compact (here) as proof that this our nation was in some way founded on the Christian faith. In light of the first argument it follows logically that any religious teachings mentioned by the founders of this nation in their writings should be declared as the official state religion, which would make Hellenistic polytheim (or the belief in gods such as Zeus, Athena, and Poseidon) one of the official religions of these United States, as it was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson (here) and John Adams (here), among others. As to the second argument, the Mayflower Compact did not legally establish this Union; it therefore cannot be used as justification for the establishment of an official religion over this Union.

  In the document that did establish this nation, in the Declaration of Independence, there is made mention of the Creator and of the Supreme Judge of the world, but these terms could apply to any of a number of forces, including the Universe, the forces of Chaos, or Raven of the First Peoples (that god who stole the Sun, made the world, and spread knowledge and learning among the scattered races); to assume that by Creator our founders meant Jesus, or Yahweh, or any other deity not specifically named in our founding texts, is: to make assumptions founded on narrow-mindedness and on a penchant for exclusionary practices; to violate the constitutional mandate of securing the Blessings of Liberty (for a definition of liberty, see here) to ourselves and to our Posterity by restricting the ability of the American citizen to operate according to his or her free will (by forcing him or her to genuflect before a god not necessarily of his or her choosing).

  America does not have an official national language, and it will never have an official national religion. The establishment of an official national religion would signal: the ending of our republic; the ending of the rule of rationality and of Justice; and the violation of the constitutional parameters of Domestic Tranquility and the Blessings of Liberty.
  Join me in fighting this threat to our fine nation, so that we together might safeguard our most precious documents and maintain Liberty here and abroad. Let us give in neither to irrational fear nor to irrational judgement; rather, let us maintain the principle of Reason and practice it in all our daily affairs. There is no time to spare, but time is short.

  Stand up. Speak out. Spread liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

Violations In Grooming

30JUN2011
Westminster, MD
  Timothy Blastac, an unemployed auto-mechanic from this bucolic town near the Mason-Dixon line, was taken into custody today by the federal government on charges of violating interstate commerce laws. Blastac, who since losing his job has been seen cutting his own hair, declined to comment for this story. Agent Brown, the lead FBI investigator on the case, said at the scene, "Mr. Blastac was witnessed cutting his own hair in his back yard using a hand-held mirror and a pair of cheap clippers. As his actions violate the potential for a discount hairdresser in Pennsylvania, which lies but a few miles away, to perform these grooming services for him, we apprehended him on suspicion of violating interstate markets. Pending further investigation."
  Dalton Lambert, Mr. Blastac's neighbor, said, "I saw Tim out back trimming his mullet, and I joked about it to some of the guys down at the shop. Someone must have contacted the authorities." Under the interstate commerce clause found in the Constitution, the federal government routinely punishes individuals for growing marijuana that those individuals could potentially transport across state lines, thus potentially affecting potential markets in other states, even if those markets are neither legitimized nor regulated under legislation of any type. Mr. Blastac, by allegedly performing grooming services on himself that could have been performed by an individual in a neighboring state, allegedly compromised the potential for an individual in a market in another state to potentially profit from potentially performing these services. "We will not tolerate violations to potential markets," chief inspector Ryan Henneman, of the ATF, said. "Just as growing vegetables in your own garden violates the potential profits to be made by vegetable growers in other states, we cannot allow individuals to perform services on themselves that could potentially be performed by individuals in other potential markets, in other states."
  The federal government has issued blanket warnings to individuals who mow their own lawns, raise livestock such as chickens or rabbits, or maintain and service their own vehicles, as well as any activities that smack of self-sufficiency or self-reliance, saying that individuals performing these tasks, which all stand to violate potential markets in potentially different states, will be brought to justice. "We have for too long allowed these violations of potential commerce among the states to go on unpunished," Agent Brown said. "Soon the general public will understand that the potential rights of potential markets to make potential profits far exceedes the fourteenth Amendment right of the individual to his or her liberty, or to decide for his or herself when and how to cut his or her own hair or what it is he or she should grow or consume on his or her private property." The ACLU declined to comment for this story.

James J. Jameson, reporting for Bronco 8 news

(This non-news article is satirical. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. None of the statements attributed to the various federal agencies or other groups are intended to be taken as factual statements. This is a joke.)