Monthly Archives: January 2015

  • How do you defend a friend?

    How do you defend a friend? That shouldn’t be a tough question, should it? When someone you care about, that you’ve worked, marched and protested with, broken bread and shared highs and lows with, is attacked, misrepresented and lied about… what do y…

  • A Break from Pot Talk to talk about Pot…..

    Purusing the headlines this morning I found an article (Here in it’s entirety if you are so inclined.) in the Missourian in which the writer seems to have a problem with legalizing the “devil weed”. As you all know we are going to explore our options and discuss legalization in Missouri over the next week or so, but I felt it important to point out the fallacies I find every single time with some of the arguments the writer makes.

    So, let’s get at it……

    To supporters of recreational marijuana use, we pose this question: What is so unsatisfying or unfulfilling about your life that you feel a need to get high? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Among the most frequent responses are: Marijuana is no worse than alcohol. That’s true. We recall a story last year with the headline: “Alcohol is still the deadliest drug in the United States, and it’s not even close.” Alcohol abuse is a scourge in our society. Consequences include accidents, fatalities, family breakups, job losses, health problems, legal issues and more.

    To the opponents, I pose this question:

    • What is so unsatisfying or unfulfilling about your life that you feel the need to eat ice cream? or watch that soap opera? or read 50 Shades of Grey? or have an affair? or eat fast food everyday at lunch? or meddle in the choices of grown adults?
      • And conversely, what is so great about your life that makes you think a few drinks at happy hour with friends is ok? or that glass of wine with dinner? why do you go to the gym?

    I think you can see where I am going with this. There are choices that people make everyday in their lives. Folks choose if they want to be happy, healthy and wise. And, they choose what that means to them. As a freedom lover you do not get to pick and choose what freedoms another is allowed to have. You don’t have to like or even approve of someone’s choices, but they are their choices to make. To the extent that there is no harm extended to you, you do not have the power to choose for another. Otherwise, you also like Obamacare and the EPA.

    Alcohol prohibition in the United States has been tried; it failed. A comparison to alcohol is not a compelling reason to legalize another mood-altering substance, which experience has shown creates problems and is difficult, if not impossible, to repeal.

    It’s my business if I want to get high; I’m not hurting anyone else.

    That may be true for a person who lives in a vacuum. Otherwise, it is classic denial. A person who is impaired cannot be completely involved in activities with a spouse, children or friends. Impaired judgment impedes the ability to follow instructions, interact with co-workers or complete routine tasks. Getting high is about self, not about others.

    To this silly argument, I would just like to point out, you already deal Every. Single. Day. with what might be hundreds of people that are high. Maybe you think this is part of the problem with society. That’s fine. You are entitled to think whatever you want, but again, legalizing it or not does not change this fact. The only thing you accomplish by keeping cannabis illegal is possibly making criminals out of people who are doing ZERO harm to you or yours. People you like, who clean your house, care for your children, are your BEST friends; all for no other reason than you disagree with how they spend their alone time. You are ok with their doors being kicked in. Their dogs shot. Their families torn apart. Their lives ruined. You will sit in judgement of how much is too much or too little involvement with families, children and spouses, their ability to do their job or take on tasks, yet I guarantee lots of normal, regular people are already doing those things around you every day. Personally I think, if someone is not doing themselves to your satisfaction, you are the one with the problem. You do you, let them do them.

    When we discuss legalizing pot, we have to be honest about what the real discussion is. If someone is a bad parent, a lazy bum, stealing to support their habit, using substances under-age-all of these things are already addressable with existing law. The legality of marijuana has nothing to do with it. If you blame pot for failings in the human race, we must revisit the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument.

    Don’t be a hypocrite.

    The goal of every true freedom lover should always be to have the least amount of laws (and control) over the lives of others while maintaining order and giving the opportunity to prosper in society.

  • A Break from Pot Talk to talk about Pot…..

    Purusing the headlines this morning I found an article (Here in it’s entirety if you are so inclined.) in the Missourian in which the writer seems to have a problem with legalizing the “devil weed”. As you all know we are going to explore our options and discuss legalization in Missouri over the next week or so, but I felt it important to point out the fallacies I find every single time with some of the arguments the writer makes.

    So, let’s get at it……

    To supporters of recreational marijuana use, we pose this question: What is so unsatisfying or unfulfilling about your life that you feel a need to get high? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Among the most frequent responses are: Marijuana is no worse than alcohol. That’s true. We recall a story last year with the headline: “Alcohol is still the deadliest drug in the United States, and it’s not even close.” Alcohol abuse is a scourge in our society. Consequences include accidents, fatalities, family breakups, job losses, health problems, legal issues and more.

    To the opponents, I pose this question:

    • What is so unsatisfying or unfulfilling about your life that you feel the need to eat ice cream? or watch that soap opera? or read 50 Shades of Grey? or have an affair? or eat fast food everyday at lunch? or meddle in the choices of grown adults?
      • And conversely, what is so great about your life that makes you think a few drinks at happy hour with friends is ok? or that glass of wine with dinner? why do you go to the gym?

    I think you can see where I am going with this. There are choices that people make everyday in their lives. Folks choose if they want to be happy, healthy and wise. And, they choose what that means to them. As a freedom lover you do not get to pick and choose what freedoms another is allowed to have. You don’t have to like or even approve of someone’s choices, but they are their choices to make. To the extent that there is no harm extended to you, you do not have the power to choose for another. Otherwise, you also like Obamacare and the EPA.

    Alcohol prohibition in the United States has been tried; it failed. A comparison to alcohol is not a compelling reason to legalize another mood-altering substance, which experience has shown creates problems and is difficult, if not impossible, to repeal.

    It’s my business if I want to get high; I’m not hurting anyone else.

    That may be true for a person who lives in a vacuum. Otherwise, it is classic denial. A person who is impaired cannot be completely involved in activities with a spouse, children or friends. Impaired judgment impedes the ability to follow instructions, interact with co-workers or complete routine tasks. Getting high is about self, not about others.

    To this silly argument, I would just like to point out, you already deal Every. Single. Day. with what might be hundreds of people that are high. Maybe you think this is part of the problem with society. That’s fine. You are entitled to think whatever you want, but again, legalizing it or not does not change this fact. The only thing you accomplish by keeping cannabis illegal is possibly making criminals out of people who are doing ZERO harm to you or yours. People you like, who clean your house, care for your children, are your BEST friends; all for no other reason than you disagree with how they spend their alone time. You are ok with their doors being kicked in. Their dogs shot. Their families torn apart. Their lives ruined. You will sit in judgement of how much is too much or too little involvement with families, children and spouses, their ability to do their job or take on tasks, yet I guarantee lots of normal, regular people are already doing those things around you every day. Personally I think, if someone is not doing themselves to your satisfaction, you are the one with the problem. You do you, let them do them.

    When we discuss legalizing pot, we have to be honest about what the real discussion is. If someone is a bad parent, a lazy bum, stealing to support their habit, using substances under-age-all of these things are already addressable with existing law. The legality of marijuana has nothing to do with it. If you blame pot for failings in the human race, we must revisit the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument.

    Don’t be a hypocrite.

    The goal of every true freedom lover should always be to have the least amount of laws (and control) over the lives of others while maintaining order and giving the opportunity to prosper in society.

  • The State of the Union: What?

    What? What’s there to be said? There’s only so much filth that you can be confronted with, without becoming violently ill.

    There’s not much to add, is there?  certainly nothing uplifting. But maybe tangentially enlightening could be useful.

    Ok,  here ya go: From John Adams’ defense of the Red Coats in the Boston Massacre trial:

    “… In the continual vicissitudes of human things, amidst the shocks of fortune and the whirls of passion, that take place at certain critical seasons, even in the mildest government, the people are liable to run into riots and tumults. There are Church-quakes and state-quakes, in the moral and political world, as well as earthquakes, storms and tempests in the physical. Thus much however must be said in favour { 250 } of the people and of human nature, that it is a general, if not universal truth, that the aptitude of the people to mutinies, seditions, tumults and insurrections, is in direct proportion to the despotism of the government. In governments completely despotic, i.e.where the will of one man, is the only law, this disposition is most prevalent.—In Aristocracies, next—in mixed Monarchies, less than either of the former—in compleat Republick’s the least of all—and under the same form of government as in a limited monarchy, for example, the virtue and wisdom of the administration, may generally be measured by the peace and order, that are seen among the people. However this may be, such is the imperfection of all things in this world, that no form of government, and perhaps no wisdom or virtue in the administration, can at all times avoid riots and disorders among the people.

    Now it is from this difficulty, that the policy of the law hath framed such strong discouragements, to secure the people against tumults; because when they once begin, there is danger of their running to such excesses, as will overturn the whole system of government. There is the rule from the reverend sage of the law, so often quoted before.
    I. H.H.P.C. 437. “All present, aiding and assisting, are equally principal with him that gave the stroke, whereof the party died. For tho’ one gave the stroke, yet in interpretation of law, it is the stroke of every person, that was present aiding and assisting.”16

    I. H.H.P.C. 440. “If divers come with one assent to do mischief, as to kill, rob, or beat, and one doth it, they are all principals in the felony. If many be present, and one only gives the stroke whereof the party dies, they are all principal, if they came for that purpose.”17…”

    If one only gives the stroke, whether he be thug, community organizer or POTUS, makes no difference, all those with him, are guilty all the same riot. Compare last night’s speech, to our Constitution, to our foundation of Law. Then compare it to others… Read again, retch, repeat.

    Nighty-night.

  • The State of the Union: What?

    What? What’s there to be said? There’s only so much filth that you can be confronted with, without becoming violently ill.

    There’s not much to add, is there?  certainly nothing uplifting. But maybe tangentially enlightening could be useful.

    Ok,  here ya go: From John Adams’ defense of the Red Coats in the Boston Massacre trial:

    “… In the continual vicissitudes of human things, amidst the shocks of fortune and the whirls of passion, that take place at certain critical seasons, even in the mildest government, the people are liable to run into riots and tumults. There are Church-quakes and state-quakes, in the moral and political world, as well as earthquakes, storms and tempests in the physical. Thus much however must be said in favour { 250 } of the people and of human nature, that it is a general, if not universal truth, that the aptitude of the people to mutinies, seditions, tumults and insurrections, is in direct proportion to the despotism of the government. In governments completely despotic, i.e.where the will of one man, is the only law, this disposition is most prevalent.—In Aristocracies, next—in mixed Monarchies, less than either of the former—in compleat Republick’s the least of all—and under the same form of government as in a limited monarchy, for example, the virtue and wisdom of the administration, may generally be measured by the peace and order, that are seen among the people. However this may be, such is the imperfection of all things in this world, that no form of government, and perhaps no wisdom or virtue in the administration, can at all times avoid riots and disorders among the people.

    Now it is from this difficulty, that the policy of the law hath framed such strong discouragements, to secure the people against tumults; because when they once begin, there is danger of their running to such excesses, as will overturn the whole system of government. There is the rule from the reverend sage of the law, so often quoted before.
    I. H.H.P.C. 437. “All present, aiding and assisting, are equally principal with him that gave the stroke, whereof the party died. For tho’ one gave the stroke, yet in interpretation of law, it is the stroke of every person, that was present aiding and assisting.”16

    I. H.H.P.C. 440. “If divers come with one assent to do mischief, as to kill, rob, or beat, and one doth it, they are all principals in the felony. If many be present, and one only gives the stroke whereof the party dies, they are all principal, if they came for that purpose.”17…”

    If one only gives the stroke, whether he be thug, community organizer or POTUS, makes no difference, all those with him, are guilty all the same riot. Compare last night’s speech, to our Constitution, to our foundation of Law. Then compare it to others… Read again, retch, repeat.

    Nighty-night.

  • How Many Senators Does It Take To Drive Climate Change Crazies, Crazy?

    Just one, apparently. Ted Cruz. IJR just reported the Texas Senator was named the Subcommittee Chair on Science, Space and Competitiveness. And Cruz’s rep as a “denier of climate change” and a “budget hawk” are making the left more than a little itchy. Social media is exploding with derogatory remarks.…

  • A moments musing: Spy vs. Spy, Zombie vs. Ghost, ISIS vs. Anonymous – all in all a new state of war?

    Musing on – So here’s an odd notion to think about – perhaps one of those moments when folks of the future will look back and say ‘Wo, we didn’t see that one coming!

    For those who didn’t know, the ubiquitous, solid, non-porous structures called the “Nation State”, which we all take for granted as being solid and permanent structures, are barely as old as our own youthful nation. There power and presence following from the ability for government to establish clear borders, and extend its laws over its jurisdiction, without competition – or at least without competition from anything less than another Nation State vying for the same territory through War.

    The means and ability of these nation states has rested upon their ability to say what was theirs, and to identify those who openly dispute them. The bugaboo of such states has been the guerilla bands, as Great Britain found out in the American Revolutionary War, as France and America found out in Vietnam, and as the USSR found out in Afghanistan. Etc.

    But those guerrillas have always had a physical presence, sometimes tough to nail down, but as they did have actual physical locations, not impossible.

    Here, today, we are perhaps seeing the coming irrelevance, or at least what will instigate a major mutation of, the Nation State as we know it, and we’re seeing it in the clash of semi-guerrilla/semi-hactivist groups of ISIS/Al Queda, and the entirely amorphous group of hactivists, which call themselves Anonymous.

    ISIS supporters having just slaughtered a particularly visible outpost of non-islamism in the French satirical organ of Charlie Hebdo. And feeling their oats, they’ve also been cyber-attacking American military and press outlets on Twitter and YouTube.

    “ISIS is already here, we’re in your PCs, in each military base,” one of the messages read, using an acronym for the Sunni extremist group. “We wont stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!”

    Anonymous, becoming sensible to the utter lack of fun and hackery which will be available should the islambies manage to get a more sizable politically correct foothold, has issued a cyber-fatwa against the islambies.

    “You will not impose your sharia law in our democracies, we will not let your stupidity kill our liberties and our freedom of expression. We have warned you; expect your destruction.”

    The press release ends in typical Anonymous fashion:

    “We will track you everywhere on the planet, nowhere will you be safe. We are Anonymous. We are legion.

    “We do not forget. We do not forgive. Be afraid of us, Islamic State and Al Qaeda – you will get our vengeance.”

    What we are perhaps about to see, is a clash of Spy vs. Spy, of Zombie vs. Ghost, and no doubt it will be played out across the ‘territory’ which existing Nation States are currently claiming as their own.What, I’m wondering, will happen, if this potential battle happens in real time and real space, while all the while the Nation State finds its ponderous self having no ability to take part in or interact in the battle, little or no ability to control the territory, or even find itself able to identify the combatants whose battlefields and bodies may nonetheless be strewn across their ‘jurisdiction’?

    That just might pose a problem to the substance of their substance.

    Note: I’m not at all being wistful here, for all its flaws, I’m rather attached to the the idea of solid jurisdictions for the Rule of Law.

    But.

    Here’s a question that our current slew of politicians just might want to take a moment and ponder:

    “What happens if We The People begin to think that they not only do not listen to us, yet still burden our lives and liberties with their endlessly stupid contests for power over us, and find themselves unable to even secure our lives, liberty, property and ability to pursue happiness?”

    Hmmm? Even the seemingly impregnable Nation State requires foundations… if it begins to seem as if those are built upon sand… well… who knows?

    Perhaps this will little musing of mine will amount to little more than a moment of Cyber-Poli-Punk speculation. I hope so.

    On the other hand… perhaps it’s just as possible that we’re about to see the next stage in Poly-Sci evolution… or maybe a new instance of webbernetic political regression to a cyber-war of all against all.

    Well that was cheery.

    /Musing off.

  • A moments musing: Spy vs. Spy, Zombie vs. Ghost, ISIS vs. Anonymous – all in all a new state of war?

    Musing on – So here’s an odd notion to think about – perhaps one of those moments when folks of the future will look back and say ‘Wo, we didn’t see that one coming!

    For those who didn’t know, the ubiquitous, solid, non-porous structures called the “Nation State”, which we all take for granted as being solid and permanent structures, are barely as old as our own youthful nation. There power and presence following from the ability for government to establish clear borders, and extend its laws over its jurisdiction, without competition – or at least without competition from anything less than another Nation State vying for the same territory through War.

    The means and ability of these nation states has rested upon their ability to say what was theirs, and to identify those who openly dispute them. The bugaboo of such states has been the guerilla bands, as Great Britain found out in the American Revolutionary War, as France and America found out in Vietnam, and as the USSR found out in Afghanistan. Etc.

    But those guerrillas have always had a physical presence, sometimes tough to nail down, but as they did have actual physical locations, not impossible.

    Here, today, we are perhaps seeing the coming irrelevance, or at least what will instigate a major mutation of, the Nation State as we know it, and we’re seeing it in the clash of semi-guerrilla/semi-hactivist groups of ISIS/Al Queda, and the entirely amorphous group of hactivists, which call themselves Anonymous.

    ISIS supporters having just slaughtered a particularly visible outpost of non-islamism in the French satirical organ of Charlie Hebdo. And feeling their oats, they’ve also been cyber-attacking American military and press outlets on Twitter and YouTube.

    “ISIS is already here, we’re in your PCs, in each military base,” one of the messages read, using an acronym for the Sunni extremist group. “We wont stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!”

    Anonymous, becoming sensible to the utter lack of fun and hackery which will be available should the islambies manage to get a more sizable politically correct foothold, has issued a cyber-fatwa against the islambies.

    “You will not impose your sharia law in our democracies, we will not let your stupidity kill our liberties and our freedom of expression. We have warned you; expect your destruction.”

    The press release ends in typical Anonymous fashion:

    “We will track you everywhere on the planet, nowhere will you be safe. We are Anonymous. We are legion.

    “We do not forget. We do not forgive. Be afraid of us, Islamic State and Al Qaeda – you will get our vengeance.”

    What we are perhaps about to see, is a clash of Spy vs. Spy, of Zombie vs. Ghost, and no doubt it will be played out across the ‘territory’ which existing Nation States are currently claiming as their own.What, I’m wondering, will happen, if this potential battle happens in real time and real space, while all the while the Nation State finds its ponderous self having no ability to take part in or interact in the battle, little or no ability to control the territory, or even find itself able to identify the combatants whose battlefields and bodies may nonetheless be strewn across their ‘jurisdiction’?

    That just might pose a problem to the substance of their substance.

    Note: I’m not at all being wistful here, for all its flaws, I’m rather attached to the the idea of solid jurisdictions for the Rule of Law.

    But.

    Here’s a question that our current slew of politicians just might want to take a moment and ponder:

    “What happens if We The People begin to think that they not only do not listen to us, yet still burden our lives and liberties with their endlessly stupid contests for power over us, and find themselves unable to even secure our lives, liberty, property and ability to pursue happiness?”

    Hmmm? Even the seemingly impregnable Nation State requires foundations… if it begins to seem as if those are built upon sand… well… who knows?

    Perhaps this will little musing of mine will amount to little more than a moment of Cyber-Poli-Punk speculation. I hope so.

    On the other hand… perhaps it’s just as possible that we’re about to see the next stage in Poly-Sci evolution… or maybe a new instance of webbernetic political regression to a cyber-war of all against all.

    Well that was cheery.

    /Musing off.

  • Homeschoolers Persecuted In VA, Is This Separation Of Church And State?

    Regardless of the quantifiable data supporting its success, homeschooling, or as I and my friends like to call it, parent led education, isn’t really very well appreciated across the American culture. And because of that, homeschoolers face persecution of all sorts. I can personally attest to that as I home…

  • Jews & Muslims: Strange Bedfellows In Hollywood

    On the heels of the massive demonstration, in France, which included leaders from around the world who protested the Charlie Hebdo massacre, by Muslim extremists, Viral Buzz posted a list, a rather long list, of high profile Hollywood elites who have sworn their faith to Allah.   Here are a…

Posts navigation