Sometimes we see programs started that seem down right silly. Here's one that seems very silly, at first glance. But, not only would it be a lot of fun to try, it could also work quite well.

This is from a strongly Libertarian group, incorporated as a nonprofit corporation, with an address located in Clark County, Nevada. The five directors are all from different states.

The Libertarian part doesn't bother us. We've said for years that we favor a two party system in the United States. Where I differ from some others on the political scene is that I want the two political parties to be the Republican Party and either the Libertarian Party of the Constitutional Party. We've had about enough of the communists and socialists in the Democratic Party.

Anyway, now comes a group of political activists who are putting their money (and time) where their mouth is and planning to do something of substance.

They call themselves the Free State Project.(1) Below is a little about their plan:

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the nation and the world.

We don't want to wait decades for most citizens in the U.S. to realize that the nanny state is an insult to their dignity. For those of us who already understand the debilitating effects of a government bent on reducing liberty rather than increasing it, the Free State Project aims at liberty in a single state.

What do we mean by liberty? We believe that being free and independent is a great way to live, and that government's only role should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. To quote author L. Neil Smith, we believe that "no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."

What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws outlawing drugs and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain. We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.

The state where we will move will be decided once membership has reached 5,000. We are doing extensive research on all the candidate states. The vote will be conducted according to the method of Cumulative Count, which more closely approximates the ideal of individual choice than simple majority rule.

Can 20,000 political activists take over a state and correct the socialist ills so entrenched today? Sure, if it's a small state and the current residents are already somewhat Liberty oriented. That number of people could move in and completely control every political party in the state. So, Democrats and RINOs beware. This is doable.

It appears they have been doing a lot of homework on the matter, too. They have their eye on thirteen states. So far, though, it looks as if New Hampshire fits their needs best.

Liberty takes vigilance and effort to secure and protect. Most Americans have forgotten that and it shows in the blatantly unconstitutional laws, rules and regulations we have allowed public officials to impose on us this past century. So, we wish the Free State Project success. This is the type of experiment that should be happening everywhere. Perhaps if the Free State Project is a success, this type of program will expand to other states.

We can dream, anyway.

1. http://www.freestateproject.org

Well, well, yet another Jerry Springer. That's a fit. There's room for one more on daytime TV. Bill has about the same mentality as Springer. Or, perhaps he will act dense and goofy like Phil Donahue. Either way, it will be very interesting to see him flame out in living color.

Yeah, that's the news. Bill Clinton's friends, the great pretenders of Hollywood, are shopping him for a TV talk show. They want to see Bill yakking it up with the common people on daytime TV. Anyone think he will be competition for the soap operas?

Sometimes we wonder if the major media honchos are intentionally trying to lose money. The only way the likes of Clinton could be a success on television would be if he brought on Monica Lewinsky as a co-host. Like Donahue, he just has nothing to say anyone wants to hear. Even with Monica, few would watch more then a week; which is about the time it would take for the prurient interest to wear off.

Still, the left leaning networks have to try something, else they will all go broke. It's interesting to learn that CNN-AOL-Time Warner-whatever, Inc. is $27 billion in debt and rated just above the junk heap as an investment. MSNBC is having problems and may soon be going belly up, too. Even ABC, CBS and NBC are all having problems. One would think they would learn what the people want, but they do not.

Fox News is doing quite well. They are piped into less homes than CNN, yet have more viewers. That has to be very embarrassing for the lefties over at CNN. But even Fox is going liberal on us lately. They make their money because of good reporters like John Gibson, then mess up by importing CNN's liberal propagandists like Susan Estrich.

Well, here's a memo to Fox News: When the liberal propagandists come on, your channel gets turned off. Leave the socialists to the other networks.

What is needed . . . what will be watched . . . is a news/talk channel that is basically conservative as well as liberty oriented. There are plenty of very good looking female reporters on the Republican side to chose from. All are very smart and can be newsmakers in their own right. There are quite a few men, too.

Every so often a conservative like Alan Keyes gets a shot. The problem is -- as happened with Alan Keyes -- they either get over produced or dropped into a program format that disguises their real knowledge and capabilities. The shout-show format is overworked. Other formats are needed.

For instance, had they given Doctor Keyes an evening program where he could discuss the various ways the federal government regularly violates our Constitution, it would have quickly blossomed into a must-watch show across the country. Of course, he would then become a newsmaker as well as a news reporter and the networks do not want to allow that to happen.

Clearly, if channels like MSNBC really want to make money they're going to have to clean house and start over. One easy way would be to hire a dozen of the well known conservatives and let them make the programming plan they want to present. Throw in a couple Libertarians like Professor Walter Williams and the outcome is sure to be a watchable lineup.

Or, they can just continue losing money. There's no problem with that on this end, actually. We can always play their stock short and make a few bucks from their bullheadedness.

Also in the news about the news last week: Voter News Service, an elections consortium owned by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox and The Associated Press, is still in business and ready to go again this year. Readers might remember that VNS is most responsible for incorrectly calling the last election for Gore in Florida, at least an hour before the Florida polls were closed.(1)

Congress and federal agencies, of course, should have looked into this and other vote fraud. But, nothing happened. So, it will be business as usual among all the normal players again this year.

And the major media? Well . . . they own Voter News Service, so we certainly cannot expect them to report deregulatory information on themselves.

1. http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron207.htm

Two questions were under discussion with merchants in the neighborhood: When is inexpensive and disposable stuff junk? And, just because something is inexpensive and disposable, should we call it junk even when it is very useable and quite handy?

Nonetheless, "junk" was the first impression most of us had as we read over the information I researched for this new product. At least, that was our impression until we thought about it for a while.

Most of my adult life was spent tethered to a beeper and/or cell phone. Now, in semi-retirement, I adamantly refuse to carry either again. The last thing I want is to "take a call" while driving, shopping or eating in a restaurant. Unless there is an important family emergency, whatever the problem can wait.

Still, there are certain times when one would like instant communications with family or officials. Driving around the back roads of Kentucky, I have come upon crashes by people who drove too fast to stay on the winding roads. In an urban community, I sometimes see feral street cretins up to no good. And, sometimes someone nearby just needs an immediate call for help. In those instances, having a cell phone comes in handy.

On the other hand, I do not wish to carry around something I really do not want to use. So, in a nutshell, there's the problem.

Which brings us back to the inexpensive and disposable. Some enterprising American businesses have come up with a new product that basically fills a need in the modern communications gap while not costing a lot of money for the user.

Cell phones are still relatively expensive. And, as stated above, many of us just do not wish to receive calls outside of our home or office. Besides, most cell phones are still too bulky to carry around comfortably.

Now comes the new wave of personal communications: the relatively inexpensive, disposable cell phone. Generally speaking, these do only one thing. They call out. All the bells and whistles are removed and the bare-bones circuitry allows the telephone to be produced in a small package.

From Garden Grove, CA comes a small company named Hop-On.com Inc.(1) In Orlando, Fla., there is New Horizons Technologies International Inc. Both are scheduled to begin sales next month. Reports are that New Horizons plans to make 1.2 million phones during the next 12 months.

"All the phone companies want to do is get you to use their fancy applications so they can charge you a lot of money. I think a lot of people just want to make a phone call," Hop-On.com Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Michaels told reporters.

As reported by the Washington Times last Tuesday: "New Horizons' least expensive model will cost $39.95 and have 10 minutes of calling time. Another model with 30 minutes of calling time will cost $44.99. Hop-On.com's phone will cost $39.95 and have 60 minutes of calling time. Neither company will charge a monthly fee or activation fee."

These are still a little pricey for those who talk a lot. But there is important competition coming, which means the price will be coming down fast.

Most interesting is Diceland Technology of Cliffside, N.J. Diceland designed a cute little cardboard phone.(2) Unfortunately, it seems that Diceland handed the project off to General Electric, so it may take a while for that corporate bureaucracy to get something on the market.

Unlike most of the new disposable phones, the New Horizon Technologies Cyclone will also be able to receive calls.

"We believe Cyclone fills a glaring void in the industry," says Stephen Romeo, Sales VP for New Horizon Technologies International, creators of the Next Generation Disposable Cell Phone.

"Wireless manufacturers continue to build products geared to the high-end user, constantly adding more bells and whistles and making phones prices higher and higher. No one is building a product for the masses -- until now. We've designed and built Cyclone with 1/3 the parts of a normal cell phone, making it much less expensive to build and service. Our phone only has one bell and one whistle -- make a call and receive a call. That's all most of us really need."(3)

Most of the new cell phones will not be exactly disposable. That is, there will be a $5.00 rebate given on used phones returned and they will be reworked and refreshed to be used again.

At the moment, various price schedules are proposed and some are much too expensive. Initially, most will probably be sold at about $30.00 for 60 minutes of talk time. However, there are rumblings that one company will be selling semi-disposable cell phones for just $10.00 for 60 minutes talk time.

We look for some type of inexpensive phone that can be left in the automobile glovebox until needed in an emergency. Such a device seems to be on the horizon. I'll take two.

1. http://www.hop-on.com

2. http://www.dtcproducts.com/home.html

3. http://www.cyclonephone.com

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron284.htm. Revised 9-8-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.