Archives for February 2008

I think that’s about right.

Mostly I just think that as human beings, we don’t change things personally and we don’t do it collectively until something really motivates us to change it. It’s not about freedom, or anything like that. If people perceive they’re doin’ alright, they simply aren’t going to change anything.

What we do is pretend as though we’re changing things — enthusiasm for Obama’s campaign with its vacuous and nebulous calls for "change" as exhibit one.

One might entertain the notion of a Hillary! as president if only to see what America is really made of. My guess: not a whole lot. Not anymore.

I’ll sign.

To:  All those currently exercising positions of responsibility in the Government of the United States of America, whether elected or appointed, and whether at the federal, state, or local level

Whereas the United States Government’s claim to legitimacy is purportedly based on such principles as the consent of the governed, human equality, and the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and

Whereas few if any of those over whom you claim authority have ever consented to such governance; and

Whereas governments, as claimants to such authority over others, are by their nature inconsistent with human equality; and

Whereas your laws, ordinances, decrees, and policies generally stand in violation, directly or indirectly, of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

We, the undersigned, hereby demand:

That you cease to claim to be acting in our name or as our agents; and

That you cease all attempts to exercise authority over your fellow human beings, on this continent or elsewhere; and

That you work to dismantle the institution or set of institutions known as the Government of the United States of America, in every branch and at every level, as speedily as possible; and

That you make no attempt to interfere with its replacement by voluntary associations of free and equal individuals.

It is an interesting thing I have found over 15 years of advocating such a political position. Implicit in the above is that anyone wishing to maintain their Cannibal Pot on the fire is entirely welcome to do so. Let them gnaw at each other’s limbs to their heart’s content. But, they’d need to do so at their own expense, and they’d have only those willing to subject themselves to being regularly fed upon.

And that’s essentially and honestly why the State has the nature it has. It’s a very convenient mechanism for extracting value by those clever enough to be on the side of the fed rather than the fed upon.

But the reason it really works is because most all of those who are fed upon are actually delusional enough to believe they’re feeding. And about the most sensible person you can find is only sensible enough to recognize he’s being fed upon, but freedom would be worse.

Freedom would be worse: that’s honestly what they’re saying. The most sensible.

The more I look around, the more I wonder. You see, the whole deeper problem with the State as an agent of force is that it conditions people to think only of force as a way to achieve their ends. And that ultimately works both ways when the State becomes intolerably intrusive.  It gets thrown off in the same manner in which is was installed: through brute force where people get killed.

Do you recall years and years ago when some "entrepreneurial" lawyers began suing tobacco companies on behalf of certain plaintiffs with lung cancer and other ailments reasonably linked to smoking? They sued over and over, only to have their cases dismissed or lost on motions for summary judgment. People thought it was the most ridiculous thing they ever heard, and yet now it’s commonplace. In jest, people predicted that fast food would be next; and of course those lawsuits have already begun.

Hey, here’s a ridiculous and crazy prediction: how about a law banning fat people from eating in restaurants and holding restaurant owners responsible to police it? Absurd? You sure? Karen assures us it’s no joke (PDF).

I see something like that and I wonder what’s going to be the spark that ignites widespread violence. I really do hope that people gravitate to solidarity in Civil Disobedience as the State intrudes further and further, rather than Civil War, but it seems less and less likely to me.

Actually, what seems the most likely of all is neither. I think people are finding cradle-to-grave government to their liking. More and more every day. Ron Paul proposed the smallest Cannibal Pot ever in modern politics, and it has gone over like a lead blimp. Freedom lovers are simply just going to have to buy their freedom. I don’t think it will ever change.

Billy’s still sold on the authenticity of this, and so am I. Just a bit ago, in email:

When I saw that, other than the near tear-to-eye something of such human beauty can bring, my immediate assumption was that it’s a bit of an optical illusion because you’re looking at it in 2D.

Check the depth of field. Both the airplane and the runway are in sharp focus, which tells me the pic must have been taken far enough from the prime subject so that the lens was essentially focused to infinity. Now, that probably would have had a wide enough angle to where you could see or get a clue on the horizon, and then it could have simply been cropped to remove those optical references. Working in 3D drawing as you do I’m sure you can think of a number of elements that could fool the eye.

And following up:

Also, look how the exhaust gases blur and obscure the runway markings and tire skid marks, even out to the outer fringes. If that’s a Photoshop, it’s gotta be the best ever.

Hey, you could test my previous hypothesis with your Class A drawing app, I’d imagine. Draw a horizon, a runway, and then place a clip art airplane at a standard takeoff angle 3/4 of the way down the runway. Pan out and rotate until you’re looking dead on at the plane with the whole runway and horizon in view. Snap a shot, then crop it down to where only the the object and minimal runway are in view. My guess is you’ll get something that looks a bit like that photo.

Any other ideas?

The lease on my BMW X5 runs out in a few months and so I’ve been thinking about what’s next. I really love the X5; the quality is superb — one needn’t even rotate tires; no discernible adverse wear — and the engineering, while seemingly simple, is quite masterful. I need something that can tow one of the pop-up trailers, but on the heavy end (like 3,000 pounds). Large V6s or small V8s just aren’t going to do it very well, even though my Beemer has a small V8 (4.3L). That’s different. It has huge horsepower. I used to have a vehicle with the Chrysler "high output" 4.7 V8 and it was a complete dog towing a pop-up  trailer of half the weight. The X5 tows this much heavier trailer as though there’s nothing back there.

I’ve owned a number of Jeeps and have always liked ’em OK, so I’m thinking about the new Grand Cherokee with the 3.0L turbo diesel. I still have profoundly fond memories of that Mercedes turbo diesel I drove for 6,000 kilometers in Europe. It was superb, and that’s a Mercedes diesel in that Jeep. It would cost less new than purchasing my 2006 X5 (35,000 miles) at the end of lease. Plus, there’s another thing. The X5, for all its virtue, simply isn’t an SUV from my point of view. It’s got large rims and low profile tires, designed for handling and high speed; it’s just not the sort of car you put good hefty all-season tires on of the sort I’ve always run on my SUVs and which uniformly keeps me running very well in snow or mud without chaining up. As it is, the X5 tires are 100% street and I’ve had to chain up a few times now. Four wheel drive is still no wheel drive or stop when you don’t have effective traction at the surface layer.

Of course, I can’t buy one here in California, this being "The Land of the Free" ‘n all. So I’ll have to jump through hoops in order to let California fuck off, like everyone should. I’ll just go buy it in Reno, register it at my aunt’s address, and then register it in CA once it has enough miles that it’s allowed in by the authorities.