Skip to main content.


This is the archive for January 2006

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Live blogging the speech, kinda. Actually just random thoughts that I won't post till its done...

...Sheehan got busted just before the speech. I'm sure the commies will be screaming oppression and censorship tomorrow

...McCain looks constipated. If Pelosi has one more facelift, she'll have to start hooking her bra over her ears.

...A litany of non-democratic countries. C'mon, say "China", say it.... say it... awww, chickenshit. I guess that might offend our prized trading partners, eh?

...only Charles Rangel did not stand for "we will not surrender to evil". Because he knows he already has?

...the SCOTUS justices don't applaud? Is that some kind of neutrality thing? BTW, where's the Qaker Oats man, isn't she still on the court? Oh, yeah, hee hee...

...[the people of Iran] have the right to win your own freedom... we look forward to being friends with a Democratic Iran." Whoa. What sleeper cells in Teheran was that one aimed at?

..."this economy could not function without [immigrants]." Hmm, that'll disturb the base.

..."the economy functions best when people keep their own money" (not exact quote). Is he going to revive SS reform? Wait for it... "make the tax cuts permanent", exactly one half of the peanut gallery is standing... "earmark reform", and McCain claps exactly like one of those wind-up monkeys with the cymbals. I think he is constipated. Line item veto? Where did that come from? Clinton got it, then the court threw it out. Does he see a chance with Alito?

...SS now, will he bring up privitization again... "congress did not act last year on my proposal to save it" Democrats give standing O lead by Hillary. A "commission".. "bipartisan solutions", oh shit, nothing's gonna get done... stopped short of the P word.

..."orderly and secure borders", there's the carrot for the stick he hinted at above

...affordable health care, hold on to your wallets. "government has a responsibility to provide healthcare" shit, this is when I really hate this guy. Medical savings accounts, OK, that's a little better.

...medical tort reform now ...? Hmm, almost, "liability reform".

..."America is addicted to oil", is he gonna push the hydrogen crap again? Hold on to your wallet again... oops, he almost caught himeslf, but still said "nucyelar", but you could tell he tried. Lots of talk here of diverting resources away from where the market thinks they'd be most efficient. OK, let's set our energy infrastructure back another few decades, no problem. initiative, OK, I'm going to lock my wallet in the safe for a while... Oh, great, he wants to fund nano-tech?

...100,000 teachers!?! Gotta love those tax-n-spend compassionate lib... er..., I mean conservatives.

...personal responsibility "proud of [governments] record." Sheesh, even a chimp could see the contradiction there.

...calling for a total ban on human cloning? Fuck You!

...Governor Blanco rolling her eyes at the amount of money for the hurricane areas.

...HIV money, more of my cash down the toilet

Oh well, a big Yawn overall, not even much to make fun of. Seems like there was a lot less spending mentioned than previous ones, but then again, it might have just been condensed into fewer examples. Same old Bush, a mixture of attack and appeasement. He chooses his battles, but I have to wonder if he couldn't afford to be more aggressive. Then again he really believes a lot of that "public responsibility" crap that just translates to "I'll be very generous in giving you other peoples money".

Should I stick around for the Commie response? Or should I just sumarize it now? "We know how to spend everyone's money, so let us do it. Bush missed an 'opportunity' to give in to us and our agenda. Our party is going straight down the toilet, but if we say that only we represent real Americans, then maybe some of them will believe it. Freedom sucks. How can we let you be free if you won't guarantee things will work out the way we want them? Who will feed us if we can't force you to do it? C'mon, we're desperate, we need you way more than you need us, so please, accept that responsibility. We'll throw ourselves at your mercy, then hate you for it and keep complaining that you aren't coughing up enough. Doesn't that sound like a good deal?"

No, I don't think I have to watch.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

I can't help but think that Richard was looking my way when he wrote:
Consider that hate has never "eaten away" at anyone. I'll tell you what eats away, and that's guilt. So does living a contradiction. If you feel guilty for hating something that ought not be approached any other way, then you ought not feel guilty about hating him, her, them or it. If you do, then you have the added burden of living a contradiction, i.e., feelings of guilt over something natural and right.
Or maybe I overestimate my own importance and it's just coincidence. In either case, he makes a good point.

What I wrote about was not hate, it was outrage. They are different. He's right, living with a contradiction is what "eats away". Outrage is an impulse to act, and to act immediately, decisively. When it cannot be so acted upon, there's your contradiction.

Richard is exactly right that hatred is the proper reaction to such things as both he and I write about. Anything short of hatred would be so inappropriate as to be immoral. In this world filled with such actions by such people, a rational man has no choice but to live every day filled with hate. But you can't live every day with hot outrage. This kind of day-in, day-out hatred can only keep if it is kept cold.

Very cold.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

The governments of Canada and the US are conspiring to murder yet another innocent man. This won't be the first time our government has imposed a de-facto death penalty for personal use of marijuana, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

How many have there been? Who knows? Peter McWilliams and Steven Kubby have fought very public, and very futile battles to save their lives. How many never fought? How many just gave up, or naively believed that, as bad as things looked, their government would never actually go that far - that there would be some last-minute provision to allow them to live, even if it meant prison and the loss of everything they cared about?

Steve Kubby has a choice to make - at least I hope he still has this choice. He can either become and international fugitive - a status he thought he had already taken upon himself - or he can submit and die.

If our government is successful in killing him, if he dies so senselessly, then...

Then what? Do I make some futile, spiteful threat that the perpetrators will be held accountable, no matter what it takes? How? The threat alone would accomplish nothing, or worse than nothing if it is actually heard and taken seriously.

Do I vow to renew the political fight to get the laws changed? Please, I might as well plan to be rescued by unicorns and taken to their secret lair uabove the clouds to live in peace and harmony for the rest of my days.

Do I say that this, then, is the final straw? That if Kubby is left to die like a dog in prison, choking on his own vomit or having his body consumed away by unchecked cancer, that I will no longer have any respect nor any use for any piece of government any longer? Well, that straw already lays forgotten on the road far behind me, lost below the horizon. I already have no respect nor use for any bit of government in any form, so even this can have no such effect on me.

The only reaction available to me is to become personally and quietly outraged. But there's no outrage left in me. I'm all used up. Without action to back it up, outrage only eats away from the inside. Outrage can only destroy, and if it is not directed outward at its source, it turns itself back on the one who holds it.

But there is one productive alternative to outrage. Cool, rational, and deliberative determination. Determination does not make empty threats, it does not announce its intentions, and it does not seek public acceptance. It does not seek a quick fix, it does not bother with addressing the symptoms - it does not tilt at windmills. It looks to principles and quietly observes, watching for tipping points, points of weakness, and vital chokepoints. It waits patiently for and works to create its opportunities and then takes them when they show themselves. Even if it takes a lifetime.

Governments do what they do for one reason. It is not to protect us from the harm of drug use, it is not to support the rule of law, it is not for anyone's personal gain. Those are all motivations for many of the individuals who are faceless cogs in the machinery in government (which includes those whose faces we see every day in the news). No, government does it to preserve the idea that it is they who make the decisions.

Even if the political fight makes some headway, even if the federal government is convinced to allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes, it will still serve that same purpose. These allowances will only ever be made on the condition that they are just that - allowances. Government will never say, "OK, you do what you want, we don't care either way." No, they may say that they will allow it, but they will always emphasize that it is they that allow it. They will always reserve to themselves the sole right to make the decision for the rest of us, even when it is the decision we would have made anyways without them.

Government is sin, and the wages of government is death. The rest of us had better learn it from those unfortunate enough to be among those who learn it firsthand. And quickly, "it's later than you think."

Hat Tip: Claire
Technorati: ,

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Please ignore this, it is just a test

and another test