Well, to no one’s surprise at all, things are heating up, and the frenzy is only going to escalate right up and all the way to that most glorious of days. That’s the day when, at long last, you finally get to reconcile all of your worries and all of your fears; all of your hopes and all of your dreams into certain and clear solutions; the day when you step forward, and in that one act of exalted and sublime human mastery and achievement, you assert — you exercise — your God-given right — that sacred right — to have your 1 in 300 millionth say in your own affairs and the affairs of others. And you shall not be denied; oh, no! This is important business, you see. There is, of course, little to no rational basis for voting. There just isn’t. But go ahead, persist in your delusion. It would be nothing new. I mean, if Jesus is Coming Again, I suppose anything’s possible, and so 1 part per 300 million might really seem meaningful. But regular readers know that the utter futility of voting is not my real objection to it. And after all, if voting…
Archives for September 2006
A question: “Why should we continue to put pressure on politicians to do something that would come as second nature to any decent person? What does it say about our leaders if we have to beg them to oppose torture?” Uh, because politicians aren’t decent people? (Brad)
Seems like a plan to me, although you ought to understand the risk you may be taking. Harbor no illusions — especially if you’re a male — and even moreso if you’re Black or Hispanic. Remember, you’re dealing with the sorts of people who seek out employment where they get to bark orders and push regular people around while carrying a gun. I dunno; perhaps it gives them bulges in their pants, or moisture in their panties. Nonetheless, if they take a dislike to you, they might suddenly “believe” that they saw a gun, or even a bomb, y’know, for even bigger bulges and gushing moisture. I think a better, safer policy is to patiently wait until you encounter a TSA-goon in a non-airport situation, where they’re not armed, and then look at them as though you just stepped in a fresh, steaming pile of dogshit. (Wendy)
Every one of them. Don’t be an idiot. These fuckers want control over every aspect of your life. They are every bit as bad as the democrats, who wish every person dependent upon them for their very lives, cradle to grave. I hate them all. I hate them with boundless passion. If you support any of them, in any way, just fucking stay clear of me. I mean it.
I cease never to be amazed at the tone and scope of things like this. The whole underlying implication is that this sort of thing is surprising, shocking, rare, isolated, unexpected. It’s nothing of the sort, and if you think it is, it’s only because you believe The Big Lie. The Big Lie, of course, is that people who hold political office possess some degree of nobility, virtue, moral authority. No, they are people who desire to control and regulate your life. And they steal your own money to do it. They believe with all their hearts that they know best what limits ought to be placed on what you are permitted to value; what limits ought to be placed on the sorts of values you are permitted to trade; what limits ought to be placed on whom you might trade with: what race, gender, nationality, or geographic situation; and in what quantity, times, places, and what minimum time must have passed since the day or your birth, or that of your partner in trade. And they wrap it all up with enforcement at gunpoint. In short, though it’s dressed up a lot prettier than others at other times have…
Easily my best laugh of the day, so far. Update: On a serious note, regarding the article cited, it makes me jump for joy. I just love justice. If this kind of moronic “regulation” (Sarbanes-Oxley) were to make America a second-rate international financial center, it would only be right and fitting; even moreso: it was rushed in during a republican, “pro-business” administration. It is to laugh, a second time. If the Republicans get what they deserve, they should not win another election for a long, long time, and I really care not what happens resulting from the commies (democrats) who’ll be filling the slots. I just don’t. Not anymore. Let it sink, as far as I’m concerned.
Well, Kim, I can’t argue with you, here. It’s a fine list, both yours and the late Colonel’s. Fine lists. I might add a thing or two and take a thing or two off, but the underlying theme is very clear. If you stop and think about it, there’s one hellava lot more chance of changing the world for the better with this sort of thing than with political activism of any sort.
John Venlet takes time out to remind people that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. For what good it’ll do.
Yet, Yet, and Yet another. Courtesy of public enemy number one.
I have some business and personal projects to attend to, so blogging will be light to nil for a while, except when it’s not.
Unless Kim what’s to block all traffic to his website, I’m not sure how he can defeat my solution to his referrer block. Bwa ha ha ha! The little sissy.
Charles Hueter has a piece up where he questions his own thinking in regard to the U.S. actions taken in response to 9/11. Part of his piece is a substantial list of articles written in the wake of 9/11 that warned against taking the international action that the U.S. eventually did take. I sit now in sober understanding that their warnings, accusations, and predictions deserved the serious attention they were denied by those who would accuse such concern as anti-American, treasonous, counter-productive, and childish. The essential lesson I should have learned from September 11th is that the state causes more problems than it solves and that is a direct result of the moral bankruptcy of the arguments in support of it and its actions. Indeed, in that my own rejection of such things as Harry Browne’s 4-part series at the time was motivated by what I saw as a blame-America-first, anti-American sentiment that seemed so misplaced in those surreal days following 9/11. Had I been paying more attention, or thought it through better, I might have concluded that it was a blame-the-state-first, anti-state message that was the essence of that series and other articles. In fact, in the past couple…
Kim du Toit, reviewing ABC’s Path to 9/11: (http://tinyurl.com/f67vs – copy and paste into a new tab or window due to his sissy referrer block from this site and others) The difference here is about power. Conservatives attain power, and then are reluctant to use it because they inherently don’t trust it. Liberals attain power—it’s what they live for—but shrink from using it. Liberals are comfortable using what I call anonymous power: adding rules and regulations, tightening existing ones, and using precedent all the time… This pot-calls-kettle-black, tribal sort of hair splitting really speaks for itself. Conservatives reluctant to use their political power? Conservatives don’t add rules and regulations, tighten existing ones, or use precedent? Now I’ve heard everything. You really, really have to be a Kool-Aid drinker to believe that shit. Of course, Kim has no shortage of those at all. Just a couple of comment excerpts: True words, Kim. – Peter G Bravo! As usual. – John Collins
That’s when we killed him. I don’t know about you, but that line had me laughing my ass off.
I don’t have any idea who these people are, or what teams they’re actually playing for. It makes no difference. I post it simply to illustrate the slow death of western culture at its very root. It speaks for itself.
You deserve it. None of this is likely to have happened without you.
What the hell is it with the resurgence of these Nigerian email scams lately? Anyone else suddenly begin seeing a lot of them in their junk email folder? I can’t believe it’d still be worth it. Is anyone still falling for these obvious and silly scams? Jesus, these things were around even before email. I used to get them in snail mail to my business address. I guess new crops of ignoramuses must be falling for them, or they wouldn’t be wasting their time. I have an unconventional way of looking at that sort of thing. You know what? I’m not interested in spending a goddamn nickel to put these kinds of people out of business. Sure, they’re thieves, I hope they all die and burn in hell, but ya gotta admit: they do serve a useful purpose in treating morons to a lesson they just might remember. I was recently at a conference in Vegas and one of the speakers was a deputy AG from Florida whose “claim to fame” was prosecuting and putting Miss Cleo out of business for “deceptive trade practices;” like, you know, failure to disclose that the “readings” they sold customers were not “actual psychic…
But it’s not about race. A bit of sarcasm from Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog, who, as usual, gets to the bottom of the anti-[Mexican]-immigration debate. Update: Neal has more good stuff on walls.
Radley Balko, who you really can’t say enough good about for his work in the Cory Maye case, is in Mississippi attending Maye’s hearing to get his sentence overturned, or, failing that, a new trial. He has a report. Go take a look at the state’s “credible witness.” What a piece of work. The whole Cory Maye story, here.
Alright, the following comment to this post is going to a separate entry (with a few small edits). The commenter I’m replying to is one of Kim du Toit’s readers, and I’ll give him credit for wading in here. “The government exists at the consent of the governed.” Pure fantasy. Someone told you that bromide, or you read it once, and swallowed it without even thinking about it. I do not consent to it. In fact, clearly, there are millions upon millions of people who do not consent to it in varying degrees. Me? I consent to absolutely none of it. Not a single thing. So, your premise is clearly and obviously completely false. What’s more, you have read my comments on Kim’s site. You know very well that I am arguing as opposed to state force. You talk about “society” and how I need to “compromise,” at the same time every one of my arguments deals with the impossibility of compromise with the state. If you could compromise with it to any meaningful degree, it would cease to be the state. I have never argued against compromise in my life. Can you guess why? Your compromises are none of…