Monday, May 31, 2010

Blog of the Moment: Every Person In New York

From the blog description:

I am trying to draw every person in New York. I will be drawing people everyday and posting as frequently as I can. It is possible that I will draw you without you knowing it. I draw in Subway stations and museums and restaurants and on street corners. I try not to be in the way when I am drawing or be too noticeable. Whenever I have a new batch of drawings I will post them on this blog.

Every Person In New York

Doug Casey: America Has Died

via LRC Blog

Ah, Memorial Day

It's the anniversary of what I think is the best blog post I ever came up with. Or, if it isn't the best then it's certainly a favorite.

Suck it, statists!

UPDATE: Someone apparently linked to the post over at, so there's now a bunch of new comments on it! And most of them are supportive of my views which is just awesome.

I'll post one of the negative comments just so we can all have a good laugh at it:

Your analysis is much too simplistic.

Let me point out that your sorry over liberal butt - That you enjoy the freedom to dishonor the dead in the military because of the military. Your sorry butt sits in safety because of men willing to do violence; or you would not enjoy the freedom you have to bash them except for them.

This just doesn't couldn't any more pathetic.

You enjoy this freedom -
Because of men who went to places they knew they may die; yet went anyway.

It is commonly called courage and I know your type; you often lack it.

To be blunt; this is a cold cruel world and if not for them; you would probably be speaking Chinese and they would not really approve of your liberal rants. They are famous for imprisoning political dissenters and even sell their organs. Yes - They really do.

NO - There have always been atrocities in war. That part I have zero tolerance for. Maybe it is quit a bit to expect people that are exposed to horrors most of us cannot imagine to keep a cool head. War brings out the best and worst in us. Mind blowing self sacrifice and courage and cruelty beyond our imagination.

Those men went for the most part for what they believed were noble aspirations. They were willing to die to protect the likes of you.

They really deserve much better.

Shame and you - all of you!

Lesbian, Lesbians, Lesbos

Bill's Curious "Support"

I have come to the conclusion that Bill Gnade is basically dishonest. This conclusion is derived not only from what he writes at his own blog, but from his comments elsewhere. His answer to my observation that he misunderstood me on "stealing concepts" was pretty funny, and revealed something disturbing about his character, but even then, in attempting to save face, he didn't get it quite right.

But no matter, I'm on to more important things, such as Bill's strange way of supporting the troops on this Memorial Day.

He starts his little pedantic essay with a lesson on the flag, and the meaning of the red, white and blue. What Bill wants us to focus on though is the red. It stands for blood spilled for freedom, he informs us:

...this country is built on the blood of others, countless, mostly faceless and nameless others, who fought and died for ideals we are free to mock and rebuke in legal and social safety, if we choose. We are free to live because others freely died; their loss being our gain, and therefore their gain as well.

Notice the not so subtle scorn and contempt for real dissent (not the phony "dissent" that Gnade only seems to express when a Democrat is in the White House) in those words. If he wants to say the country was born in rebellion that resulted in bloodshed and loss of life, I'll agree, but what was established once the Constitution was ratified was a system within which were the seeds of an oppressive federal tyranny. And it is more difficult still to name any war that followed in our history that was fought so that we would be "free to live".

I've almost no doubt that Bill is an admirer of Abraham Lincoln (though he could prove me wrong by stating otherwise) and thus believes the War of Northern Aggression was just and good, in spite of the untold suffering and death on a mass scale that it caused. We became less "free to live" after that war due to the establishment of ultimate Federal supremacy over the individual states, with the result that centralized rather than decentralized government became the norm in this "land of the free", with all the constraints on liberty that followed as more and more choices were taken away from local governments and individuals. But I guess we must still be grateful for all that bloodshed and death of that most costly in American lives of our unending wars, either that or be labeled mockers of the holy religion of the almighty American State.

Bill also wants us to know that we can't really support the troops while opposing any war our leaders choose to start. I must point out first that I have no trouble at all allowing the words "I don't support the troops" to pass my lips, but I'll make allowances for others who can not bring themselves to delve that far into blasphemy against the god of American militarism.

While Gnade asserts that to say you support the troops while opposing the war is a contradiction of some sort, I think you can easily make the case that those who look with seriousness at the conflicts our government sends those troops to fight are the more supportive in the only way that really matters. Are the troops there to invade any country in the world just because our leaders in Washington decide that's what they're going to do? In one sense, yes, but that only makes the case for "supporting the troops and opposing the war" stronger. An individual solider doesn't make the decision as to where they will be sent, they sign up and join the military knowing they will be following the orders of their commanders. But they also sign up believing (one hopes) that they will only be sent to battle where and when absolutely necessary, with many no doubt under the delusion that that will only be to protect and defend the freedom of Americans. When therefore they are used for purposes other than defending the United States against aggression from foreign enemies, they are being misused, and to speak against that misuse is to support them in the role for which they were intended.

Bill makes an analogy to emphasize his statist view, comparing those who say they support the troops and oppose our current imperial wars with bad, abusive parents.

It's not unlike telling your child that you support his interest in playing baseball, you just don't support the game. You find the game stupid, immoral, illegal, dishonest -- but -- you support his participation. Yes, you just love your daughter's interest in the cello, you just think the cello and Beethoven and Bach are all lies and abuses of power:

One wonders how such parents could ever cheer at baseball games, or applaud at the end of cello recitals. Most parenting experts would consider such duplicity bad parenting, sending out the double-binds of mixed messages. Undoubtably it would be considered by astute therapists a form of child abuse.

Now, there are several approaches one could take in exposing such sophistry, but I won't go into that much detailed analysis. To start, the analogy is terribly flawed, equating something that can be considered inherently good or at least neutral with how that thing is used. For example, I can support my daughter's cello playing wholeheartedly while objecting to her playing in a benefit concert to raise money for the Ku Klux Klan. To oppose her participation in the concert is not to oppose cello playing or her interest in it. And to oppose our wars of aggression in Iraq and other places it is not necessary to believe that military service is inherently bad, or that there isn't anything good in being a solider. As General Butler said "I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else", but to believe that, you would also believe that the troops can play an essential role in actually defending the country from invasion.

Gnade ends his post with a justification of the Iraq fiasco, and then lets us know that such death and destruction "makes protest possible", and though he may come back and deny he means any such thing regarding the Iraq war specifically, it's clear to me that in his mind, unless one is a knee-jerk enthusiast for any military adventure the President of the United States and his advisers decide upon, one is abusing the troops and opposing that which makes freedom possible. Let us not forget that we were defeated in Vietnam, and yet after that defeat, we were still free to live and to protest. I'll bet most of those whose lives were lost during that war would have been thankful if it had ended earlier, or not been embarked on in the first place.

The only real way to "support the troops" is to bring them home and get them out of harm's way, but to do that, you first have to stop supporting the war.

Music Monday: Peace


The Peace Project

Yell Fire!

Come join Music Monday and share your songs with us. Rules are simple. Leave ONLY the actual post link here and grab the code below and place it at your blog entry. You can grab this code at LadyJava's Lounge Please note these links are STRICTLY for Music Monday participants only. All others will be deleted without prejudice.

PS: Because of spamming purposes, the linky will be closed on Thursday of each week at midnight, Malaysian Time. Thank you!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

You Need to Stop...

...building these websites:

8 Websites You Need to Stop Building

Glenn Greenwald on the REAL "crazies"

This Greenwald article on Ron Paul and "craziness" is one of his all-time best.

Time Wasters

My biggest time waster? Watching videos like this...


I used to watch the Indianapolis 500 every Memorial Day weekend, but for years I've ignored it. I don't know why and I don't even remember when I stopped watching, but I just happened to see a news story on the race online yesterday and then it all came back and I said "oh yeah, the big race is tomorrow", so I'm excited about watching it again and getting ready to fire up the old television set.

Did you know that up through 1985 ABC telecast the event on a tape delay, hours after it was over? What kind of a way is that to present a major sporting event? I ask you, and I don't expect an answer. The race in those days was a prime time Sunday night big event for the network, like annual broadcasts of The Ten Commandments at Easter.

Back then you had to be careful to avoid listening to any news reports during the day of the race, because of course they would announce the winner before you had a chance to see the outcome on TV that night. I remember one year, my diaper falling off as I crawled to the kitchen for another graham cracker, hearing the radio blurt out the winner and spoiling it for me before I'd seen a single lap or watched any spectacular crashes.

But now it has been broadcast live for many years, so Indy fans can watch without knowing that it's all over before the fat lady sings.

It was once a must watch race for me, and today, I start my Indy watching engines once again and revive the tradition.

Happy race watching, sports fans!

Interesting Facts About Video Games

I don't think I'm actually posting this because of the facts...

Pacific Northwest Megaquake Imminent

Gerald Celente on Goldseek Radio

Blog of the Moment: This Day in Bald History

There’s no other way to say it: This Day in Bald History is the cure for baldness. The knowledge gained from this well-researched site will cause you to regrow hair. You will see results in 30 days or less or your money back.

You probably know that women love a man with thick, luxurious hair, the kind of hair you can only grow if you regularly visit the website This Day in Bald History. What do you have to lose?

This Day in Bald History

I was inspired to make this blog our latest Blog of the Moment by Ginx, my dear, dear buddy (confirmation of our buddy status is available from DM) who left a comment here on Rand Paul's "hair". This happened just as I was about to name Anything But Theist our latest Blog of the Moment, but now it looks as if Ginx has lost again, this time to a baldy. His blog has been up for the award a few times, but somehow fate steps in each time to prevent the honor from being bestowed (Ginx was up against another baldy once, Bill Gnade, who also has been up for the award several times, and actually inspired it to begin with...yes, the award Blog of the Moment was created to honor Bill, until I thankfully came to my senses).

And what do you know, This Day in Bald History recently brought up the most important issue regarding Dr. Paul, his "hair":

His upset victory has attracted greater scrutiny and media attention for Paul, not just for his comments regarding the Civil Rights Act, and his defense of B.P. in the Gulf oil spill, but there is growing awareness that something is terribly wrong with his hair.

While the media has focussed on his comments, the blogosphere has zeroed in on his hair… or is it his hair? There’s something unnatural about it. Short and gray at the temples, the top is shaggy and the coloring looks unnatural. Is it a toupee? Is it an erratic combover? Is it made of goose feathers spit out the back of a jet engine?

And if it is a bald cover-up, what exactly is he hiding under there? Guns? The Constitution? Unpaid taxes? It could be anything.-Mr. Paul’s Toupee Goes To Washington?

Friday, May 28, 2010

Death of the Empire

Things are looking brighter every day...but not if you love the Federal Government!

Radio Liar

I'm gonna paraphrase what I heard on the old car radio (it is really old) a couple evenings ago. I've started to learn to enjoy nothing but my own thoughts while I drive (which is kind of scary), without the distracting background of radio chatter, but I still return to old habits far too often, and this was one of those occasions.

I punched my preset talk radio station button, and prepared myself for another semi-entertaining rant from a neocon blowhard pretending to be a small-government conservative.

The first call I heard was from a woman who said she was nervous, then she started sobbing and wailing about how she doesn't believe there is any hope because of the evil Obama and the Communist Democrat Party turning the country into a Marxist dictatorship. Such fears as this insane woman has are exacerbated by right-wing talk radio hosts, who somehow were able to overlook the fact that baby Bush and a Republican Congress had already started us on the road to a fascist dictatorship, but nevertheless the real crisis of a growing Federal Government somehow didn't begin until January 20th 2009.

How did the host handle the hysterical female caller? He told her to look on the bright side and have hope and work to elect more Republicans in the elections this year! He of course named a couple "conservatives" who we should work for in their primary campaigns, but then stated that even if they were defeated, the main goal was still to elect any Republican over any Democrat because the real problem is those damn liberals. Though we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress just a few years ago that failed to magically make big, intrusive, socialistic government go away (and in fact grew it to even vaster proportions), by golly, that's the solution now because again, Obama is an evil Marxist dictator!

Mr. Radio Host offered no other reason to be hopeful for the future to this woman, other than looking to the next election cycle, even though not a single national election this century or the last has had any result but an ever expanding and oppressive Federal tyranny.

He could have given her hope by pointing to things outside of politics, like the growth of the Internet and the subsequent decline of the statist mainstream media. The education on behalf of freedom from things like libertarian websites such as and the Ron Paul movement.

He could have said that a collapse of the hideous Federal monster is almost inevitable, given the path to unending debt that our wise Keynesians have taken us down. He could have encouraged her by pointing to the growing secession movement , and the increased liberty that would result from decentralization of government power. He couldn't really go down any of those roads, though, because he is first a Dishonest Abe Lincoln lover (and even promoted a pro-Lincoln book recently on his show) and also a firm believer in the U.S. Empire and its military adventures abroad (how could we invade and occupy and have unlimited military bases in foreign lands without a huge federal government) and, need I add, a hater of libertarians and especially Ron Paul as traitors who side with the "terrorists" because they oppose sending U.S. troops all over the world and are against police state measures to "catch the bad guys" here at home.

No, it was just the same old Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Generic Right-wing Talk Show Host song and dance.

The real hope for that woman and millions of "conservatives" like her will come when mainstream talk radio is looked upon by them as being as laughable and passé as newspapers and cable news are today.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

The real problem with Rand Paul...

..isn't that he opposes criminalizing racism (a totalitarian idea if there ever was one) but that he's a despicable, war-mongering monster who lacks even a shred of integrity. Justin Raimondo on the details here and here.

Let's compare Ron Paul...

..with his sell-out hack son.

I'll take Paul the elder any day. Maybe wisdom sometimes does come with age.

Debate on the Resurrection of Jesus

If Saltines Were Freedom Crackers

Okay, so that whole "freedom fries" thing didn't fly (fry?) but somehow I like the name "freedom crackers". I was feeling a bit upset in the stomach as I left work yesterday, then I remembered my faithful package of old fashioned soda crackers (they originated in St. Louis and date to 1876, the U.S. centennial year). A more all-American (and patriotic) cracker you will not find (so again, "freedom crackers" they should be called).

I opened my stack of crackers and began eating them on the way home (though it is now illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving, it is still permitted by our ruling overlords to munch on crackers and even take your eyes off the road when you're reaching for one-but don't answer that phone, even with the speaker on!). My stomach felt better right away, but I didn't stop consuming the little baked squares upon achieving gastrointestinal relief; I continued to stuff my face, enjoying the pure cracker satisfaction and hunger-ending effect they had on me.

Then I had a thought. It went like this: Cracker-In-The-Box, McCrackers, Cracker King, Crackys, Kentucky Fried Crackers. I began to imagine a world where saltines were a brand new invention, and people added them to their orders in the fast food drive-thru lane. Maybe some people would only order crackers to eat on the way home, like they do with french fries now.

If crackers weren't available in boxes at every grocery store, would you pay more for them at your local Cracker King take-out? Would you crave them as you do those greasy fried potatoes?

Would you even start taking them to work?

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Robert Anton Wilson on Anarchism

Prometheus Rising

Why Did He Die?

Why Was JFK Murdered? (podcast)

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

What is the Underground Economy?

The Underground Economy by Danny G. LeRoy

1. It is not something subterranean. It is neither a physical structure nor a place. The pejorative term "underground economy" is used to describe the activities of buying and selling that occur beyond the purview of authorities. Typically the goods or services that are exchanged include, among others, drugs, sex, electronics, software, movies, music, and building-construction services.

2. Markets are processes involving the interplay of buyers and sellers. When the role of government is restricted to protecting persons and private property against aggression and theft, market processes transpire without impediment. Consumption opportunities are maximized as entrepreneurs deploy resources to produce goods and services in view of profitably satisfying the myriad wants of consumers.

3. When governments interfere with market processes by way of taxes, regulations, and prohibitions, they go beyond protecting individuals and private property from aggression and theft. Government-granted monopoly privilege in the form of compulsory producer cartels or patents do not protect property rights; they invade them. The aim of government interventionism is to control the productive and consumptive behavior of individuals. In other words, central authorities want to influence what you do with your body and the things that you own, ostensibly for your own good.

4. This puts those enforcing government interventionism in a difficult position, particularly with respect to the prohibition of marijuana, hash, or cocaine and services like sexual gratification. By making the production, marketing, and consumption of these goods and services illegal, enforcement agencies are required to divert resources from the protection of person and property toward surveying, capturing, fining, or arresting willing consumers, purveyors, or marketers. They are trying to halt market processes — the interplay of willing buyers and sellers. Not only is this enforcement activity very costly; it is also not very effective. In fact, evidence suggests that prohibiting drugs and prostitution is counterproductive.

5. When something becomes illegal, consumer demand does not vanish. Instead, consumers seek alternative, more costly and risky, means of satisfying their wants. Prices are higher than they would be otherwise, and product diversity, quality, and quantity demanded are lower. In view of suppressed demand and the potential to earn large profits, individuals with a knack for averting authorities direct their energy and resources to satisfy this demand. The illegality of the activity enables the intermediaries to ask higher prices of consumers and to bid down prices paid to growers of hemp, coca, and opium poppies. It gives rise to drug cartels, prostitution rings, and violence associated with the protection of "their" territories.

6. The government's "war on drugs" has been both a tremendous triumph and an abysmal failure. Drug warriors have been very successful. We have all seen media images of police stings involving massive amounts of money, drugs, and firearms. However, this has had no impact in local markets. Illegal drugs are available just about everywhere and at prices that have fallen in real terms over time. The amount of pot that could be bought for $10 at a local high school in 1980, for example, is likely the same quantity that could be obtained for $10 today.

7. Prohibition advocates can point to some positive effects. The quantity demanded of soft drugs such as marijuana and hash is likely lower than it would be otherwise. The same can be said of prostitution. But it is hard to believe that the desired effects are anywhere large enough to justify the human cost of their prohibition in terms of lives lost and lives destroyed.
-The Underground Economy in One Page

Chinese Walmart Items

...including crocodiles, turtles, and antibacterial bikini underwear for men.

16 Items They Only Sell At Chinese Walmarts

And think how "patriotic" it is to shop in a Chinese Walmart if you're Chinese. Everything in the store is proudly Made in China!

Rand Paul on Tea Party power, Fed threat and Obamacare

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

So, we can't even take Citizenship-by-Birth for granted now?

NPR reports on legislation being introduced in Congress and in Texas and Oklahoma which would deny birth certificates to children born to illegal immigrants. The people working behind these anti-birthright bills include Oklahoma state representative Randy Terrill and Texas state rep Leo Burman. In one of the most grandiose failures of common sense I've read in recent memory, Randy Terrill says the following:

Currently, if you have a child born to two alien parents, that person is believed to be a U.S. citizen...When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S.

When taken to its logical extreme, there are little things that make any sense, but even then his scenario is still absurb. But ridiculous hyperbole aside, these arguments don't really seem to be getting anywhere. Thankfully, Congress does appear to have something vaguely resembling standards, and the part of the Constitution defining anyone born in the United States as a U.S. citizen seems definite enough for their liking.

My major problem with all this is the deep xenophobia that it denotes in some of the people holding positions of power in this country. Granted, *all* arguments against open immigration denote either a deep understanding of way personal freedom works or some belief in a "we" and a "them", "they" not being privileged enough to live here on account of the particular landmass they happened to be born on. But to rights to children BORN in the country, even if they happen to be children of those the government deems "illegal" - that's an extreme I hadn't heard of before.

Politicians never cease to surprise me. And never in a good way.

Property Rights and Racism

Monday, May 24, 2010

The First Official Evidence of Israel Possessing Nuclear Weapons

via Ignorance Hurts

Waiting For God

Walter Williams, Statist "Libertarian"

I actually saw this piece by Williams first at Lew Rockwell, but since I'm linking to a post by Roderick Long, I'll give credit to him.

It's called Immigration and Liberty, and opens with the following:

My sentiments on immigration are expressed by the welcoming words of poet Emma Lazarus' that grace the base of our Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those sentiments are probably shared by most Americans and for sure by my libertarian fellow travelers, but their vision of immigration has some blind spots. This has become painfully obvious in the wake Arizona's law that cracks down on illegal immigration. Let's look at the immigration issue step by step.

There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I'd like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, I believe that a yes or no can be given to that question just as a yes or no answer can be given to the question whether Williams has a right to live in the U.S.

He would like to know how libertarians answer his question, not fellow libertarians, so I guess he doesn't consider himself libertarian.

In any event, as Long observed, Walter Williams departs from "libertarian perfection" on other issues as well, such as the "war on terror". In the essay titled Fight terror war like we did WWII, Williams basically justifies any and all "collateral damage", although it's worse than that, as that terminology implies that civilians are not or should not be deliberately targeted, but that some may die anyway as we pursue the bad guys. Williams, however, want us to fight as we did in the "Good War" WW2, by seeking out civilian targets and murdering men, women and innocent children by the hundreds of thousands. As he writes:

Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987.

Thank God Williams wasn't President of the United States in the early 1960s in place of the peace-loving John F. Kennedy. Using the Walter Williams' logic, a full-scale nuclear preemptive strike on the USSR could have been justified, including the incinerating of millions of ordinary Soviet citizens, because everyone in the nation was collectively responsible for Communist crimes.

He goes on:

At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps and raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they're government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors.

Because those millions of peace-loving Muslims do not speak out and expose terrorists and don't more fully cooperate with domestic and international authorities trying to stop terrorists, they become enemies of the West just as the peace-loving people in Germany, Italy and Japan became enemies of the Allied powers during World War II. Like them, Muslims should be prepared to suffer the full might of the West in its efforts to fight terrorism.

Can not the "terrorists" also justify the targeting of civilians using the same logic? That ordinary people in the U.S. know what our foreign policy is doing to innocents that we've murdered in the tens of thousands in our occupations of Islamic countries, and that the U.S. government and military would not be able to continue its acts of aggression without the tacit approval of the population. What Williams has done is morally justify 9/11 and all other violent acts that are aimed at non-governmental and non-military targets.

While I can understand the grievances of Islamic radicals, I can never and will never approve in the slightest of their murdering of innocents in their war against the U.S. government and other Western powers. But since the West, under the leadership of the U.S., has been and is the aggressor against Muslim populations, those within those populations who choose to fight back have the moral high ground in the "terror war", and Walter Williams cannot call the deliberate killing of civilians (even on a mass scale, as occurred in World War Two) evil, as he already makes the case that it is okay, since the "terrorist" can't carry on without the passive support of people who are otherwise just minding their own business.

Unlike the statist mass murderer Williams (by his own logic, he is responsible for the U.S. Empire's killing sprees) I equally condemn all murder, no matter who is responsible or what their justification may be.

But back to the immigration issue. Long responds:

Williams himself has written elsewhere:

I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

If Williams means what he says, then he has just acknowledged his own right to cross the borders of other “nations.” How, then, can he deny the right of other people to cross the borders of the “nation” in which he lives?

And how can he condemn acts of "terror" against civilians when he so clearly believes (like every good statist) in the collective guilt of entire populations.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of all these fake "libertarians", and it's time we stopped considering them part of our movement or even allies on some issues. Because with friends like Walter Williams, we don't need any enemies.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Circus of the Stars

Why a Stateless Society is More Free

The term “voluntarist” is often used by anti-statists, and this is a poor label because “voluntarism” only exists within the context of some property norm. For example, if some guy walked into a grassy area and took a nap, and then someone tried to force him off, getting off would hardly be voluntary from the point of view of the man taking the nap.

That the grassy area was “someone’s lawn” may mean something to the people in the town, but it’s just an assertion to the man who only sees grass. And so there is no such thing as pure voluntarism. This is often used as an argument against the idea that anti-statists are free from prescribing violence, which “we” are not.


In terms of land ownership and use, land is now free for homesteading - you don’t need to buy unused land from the state, if it’s there you can start building.

But more importantly, there will be fewer enforced laws and more variety of law. Because just because 70% of the population wants you to pay for free 12 years of schooling, doesn’t mean they’re ready to pick up their shotguns and pistols and get you to pay. The only law that will exist in a stateless society will be law that people are willing to go to war over: which are typically violent acts and grand theft.

Agrarianism and the Southern Tradition

I'll Take My Stand: The South And the Agrarian Tradition (Library of Southern Civilization)

Dirty Money

They were used in ancient Rome to request and pay for different “services” in brothels and from prostitutes on the street. Since there were a lot of foreigners coming to the city that did not speak the language and most of the prostitutes were slaves captured from other places the coins made the transactions easy and efficient. One side of these coins showed what the buyer wanted and the other showed the amount of money to be paid for the act.

Ancient Roman coins with sex scenes - sprintia

The War Is Making You Poor Act

Alan Grayson is my kind of Democrat; a politician who actually wants to do something for ordinary people instead of the military-industrial complex. This bill would exempt the first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for couples) from the clutches of those parasites at the IRS. I myself make less than $30,000 a year, yet I paid several thousand dollars in incomes taxes for last year (not counting the money stolen from me to support the Ponzi scheme called Social "Security"*). With that extra money in my pocket I'd be doing fine, but thanks to the government I'm constantly struggling instead.

Rep. Grayson introduces a bill to cut separate funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and uses the money to eliminate federal income taxes on every American's first $35,000 of income. Cosponsors of this bill include Ron Paul, Walter Jones, John Conyers, Lynn Woolsey, and Dennis Kucinich.

*An perfect description of Social Security can be found here at one the Federal government's own websites (SEC):

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

AK Press: An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

From AK Press, where they were both "shocked and...thrilled" that Glenn Beck recently mentioned their book We Are an Image From the Future: The Greek Revolt of December 2008. As they wrote in the introduction to their open letter:

But we were also kind of confused, because Beck seemed eager to interpret the book as a yet another installment in the “communist” conspiracy … only, well, we’re anarchists, we’re damn proud of that fact, and we’re frankly a little hard pressed to understand why Beck went out of his way to say explicitly that this wasn’t an anarchist book. And then we watched hours and hours of Beck blabbing on YouTube, and we started to notice a more general pattern: Beck tends to avoid directly confronting “anarchism” as a system of political actions and ideals. So we started thinking about why that might be, and the result of our deep deliberations follows in an open letter to Mr. Beck. We encourage you to post this far & wide; let’s take advantage of this unexpected moment and try and push for some real public discourse around anarchism, about what it means, and about why it works.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

Hi Glenn.

How’s it going? Since Forbes magazine says your annual earnings are in the ballpark of $32 million, we’re guessing that it’s going pretty well. You can’t put a price on defending the little guy, right?

We are the AK Press collective. In case the word “collective” throws you, it means people who work together toward a shared goal in a democratic manner, without bosses or leaders, and with everyone having an equal say in each decision. For us, that shared goal is publishing and distributing books.

We’re thrilled that you featured our book We Are an Image of the Future: The Greek Revolts of 2008 on your May 3rd show. We were, however, a little confused by your description of the book, and the way that it fit into the overall argument you made.

Okay, to be honest, we weren’t sure what your argument was. We watched the clip on YouTube a dozen times, but it was beyond us. Of course, you’re the guy with television, radio, publishing, and Internet empires. We probably spend too much time thinking about rent, food, and health insurance to fully understand the big picture you’re painting.

We do, however, know a few things. We’re anarchists and we publish books about anarchism. We Are an Image from the Future is one of them. Now, we assume that you actually read the books you talk about on your show. Yet you somehow managed to claim that a book written by and about anarchists was “written by communist revolutionaries.” “They are not anarchists,” you claimed, “but they will use anarchy to their favor.”

As you made clear earlier in your show, you know the difference between Communism and Anarchism. We don’t want to split hairs by bringing up the complex history of communism (with a small “c”), which includes both democratic and nasty authoritarian versions. So we’ll stay on your page here and say, yes, when Communists take state power it’s always ugly. But, as you must know, anarchism has always opposed state Communism. State Communism is the ultimate “big government.” You won’t find an anarchist on this planet in favor of that. Not to mention that, historically, when Communists get in the driver’s seat, anarchists are usually the first to face the firing squad. The capitalists usually get cushy managerial positions.

So we asked ourselves: What could account for this guy waving around a book written and published by anarchists, while never quoting a single word from it, and then going on to associate the book with political groups—like the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party—that no one in the book, or associated with the book, would endorse? How could he miss something so obvious?

Then it dawned on us: you’re afraid of anarchists. You’re not afraid of the fake media portrayal of anarchists as bomb-throwing maniacs: that’s your bread and butter. You’re afraid of real anarchists, the actual ideas they espouse, the real work they do.

We don’t blame you, Glenn. When we sift through your rants, we realize that there’s a lot of overlap between you and anarchists. The difference is that anarchists are more honest, aren’t part of the same elites they criticize, and they make a lot more sense. They see you, and raise you one.

Like you, we believe that people’s lives would be much better off without government intervention. Centralized power suppresses individual and community initiative and keeps people from achieving their full potential. Like you, we don’t think the solution to our current economic crisis lies in socialized industry or new layers of well-paid government bureaucrats. And, like you and many of your tea party pals, we agree that bankers and fat-cat corporate elites aren’t exactly concerned with our best interests. As you put it, it’s time to take down the folks who “line their pockets with wealth gained from enslaving a whole group of people.” And, although you seemed a bit confused on this point, that means putting “people before profits,” which is pretty much the central concern of the protesters in Greece right now. And we mean all people, regardless of income, race, gender, sexuality, or immigration status.

You’re right: we’re revolutionaries. But aren’t you? Remember the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that when a government starts screwing with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”? As anarchists, we’re dedicated to the idea of abolishing the state and capitalism altogether. We believe that without the coercive relations and competition imposed by governments and markets, people would be free to create a more just society in which resources are controlled collectively and decisions are made by the people who are affected by them. We don’t want a government (revolutionary or otherwise); we want a society based on cooperation and common sense instead of arbitrary power and exploitation.

From what sense we can make of your show, you seem happy with “altering” rather than “abolishing” a screwed-up system. For you, replacing the old boss with a new one (Sarah Palin?) is good enough. We understand that you’re confused–these are confusing times. But, deep down, you and the tea partiers know that you can’t trust any politician, or banker, or corporate hack, or union bureaucrat…or anyone who makes their living sucking power and profit from ordinary people. Which, unfortunately, probably includes multi-millionaires like you.

So, Glenn, we’re guessing that’s why you’re so afraid of us. We don’t fit neatly into your black-and-white formula. You simply borrow some of the best ideas from our 150-year-old anti-authoritarian tradition. We take those same ideas and not only run with them, but improve on them. We follow the logic to its ethical conclusion. And we include corporate media moguls like you in our Hall of Infamy.

But we’re reasonable folk. We understand that you find it scary to think about what will happen when ordinary people realize that they actually have the power to make their own decisions and take control of their own lives. So, here’s what we suggest:

Just admit you’re afraid of us. Admit that your passionate and convoluted rants are a nervous dance around your inability to support real freedom (anarchism) over unbridled power (Communism and capitalism). And then use your massive wealth and power for the forces of good.


The AK Press Collective

-An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

h/t Check Your Premises

Ron Paul On Rand Paul and Racism

Ron Paul interviewed by Alan Colmes.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Tapped Out: When Water Bills Force Foreclosure

I'm still awake, or at least conscious enough to be outraged at this.

Government and "private" business, working together against the people as always, with their enforcers, your friendly neighborhood police force, doing their dirty work. But Ginx assures me anarchy would be much worse, so I guess we should count our blessings.

One raw day in early February, Vicki Valentine stood by helplessly as real estate investors snatched her West Baltimore home over what began with an unpaid city water bill of $362. Valentine lost the property after the city sold her debt to investors through a contentious and byzantine legal process called a tax sale. This little-known type of foreclosure can enrich investors as growing numbers of property owners struggle to pay their bills.

I shouldn't have stayed up late not blogging last night

That's right, I'm tired this morning, nearly falling asleep, barely keeping my eyes open. I should have gone to bed earlier, but I wanted to blog like mad and complete ten posts before turning in. I think I posted a video, but I don't remember, it's all a blur. I should really take a nap now, but if DM drops a "comment" my alarm will go off and I'll be up to delete it.

I've really got to stop watching movies on Netflix on my computer at night, but at least it keeps me from doing nothing here at the old blog. However, I know I'll be back to my old blogging self in no time, which will lose us a few more followers for sure.

Until then, Ginx will hold down the fort with comments and Cork will write the real posts that you all enjoy (and all joking aside, Cork is the greatest thing to happen to Skeptical Eye since sliced bread, which happened on day one when I cut my finger slicing a loaf of rye and wrote the first post in great finger pain, but the sliced rye, which I turned into toast and buttered with real butter and ate while I wrote, made up for it and we were off and running).

Humor, who put that in the labels? This isn't funny at all. Seriously, I'm very tired. Maybe I should go find a video about lack of sleep? Wait here....

See, told you this wasn't funny!

And yes, I always take the advice of former pro wrestlers.

Remember The Sabbath

The Sabbath World: Glimpses of a Different Order of Time

Could Millions Die From Gulf Oil Spill?

Hype? Hysteria? Environmentalist wackos on overdrive? Or a real health catastrophe?

via The Coming Depression

John Stossel defends Rand Paul against the thought police

Here. What is so sad is that so many pushovers are so terrified of being called a "racist" that they're willing to bow before the thuggish PC left and say that racism should be criminalized.

As a radical libertarian, I will gladly defend the rights (though not the beliefs) of racists, holocaust deniers, Islamic extremists, Maoists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and every other unsavory group that causes our milquetoast friends to give up on free speech and free association.

The true litmus test of freedom is whether you're able to tolerate people who don't think or behave the way you want them to.

The BP Oil Spill and The Toxic Sludge of Public Education

Friday, May 21, 2010

Rand Paul's horrid performance on Maddow

Rand Paul's recent appearance on Maddow has created quite a controversy. He did terrible in the interview and repeatedly tried to avoid taking a stance.

Here's how I would have responded if I was in his shoes:

"Well, let me ask you a question Rachel. Should it be illegal for someone to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating? Or who one wishes to have conversations with? Or who one chooses to allow into his own home? If not, why should it be illegal when it comes to operating a business?

I think racism is stupid, but you know what? Part of freedom is allowing other people to do stupid things. I think doing drugs is stupid but believe government has no role in trying to outlaw them. I think prostitution and gambling are unwise but think people have a right to do both. I think the Catholic Church is utterly insane but believe they have a right to wreck people’s lives by teaching them twaddle. [Ok, that last sentence was just me. -Cork]

Likewise, I think it's stupid to be a racist. But should it be illegal? Of course not, because being a jerk simply isn't a crime. It may be morally reprehensible. So is cheating on your wife, but no sane person supports a law against that. By demanding that your own moral thinking be legislated into law, you guys on the left are no better than the neanderthals of the religious right. Let's not forget that it was your cherished government--not the market--that enforced and upheld the notorious Jim Crow laws.

So yes, I believe people have a right to be racist and will not apologize for it. In a free society, that is your absolute right. But where are all these supposed racist business owners? Are they the ones hiring illegal immigrants by the truckload and outsourcing our work to 'minority' nations*? Let’s face it: money ultimately trumps race in the marketplace.

Next question."

* I'm actually not against either of these things, but I'm pretending to be Rand Paul.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Always Toxic Jewelry, Always

And to think for years I painted my masterpieces with such colors as cadmium red, cadmium yellow...

After an exclusive AP report, Wal-Mart has decided to pull a line of Miley Cyrus brand jewelry that was found to contain high levels of the toxic metal cadmium.

The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business

Do you want lunch with that?

I have a half-hour lunch break at my current job. I'm accustomed to an hour. I've always had an hour break at every job I've had, until this one. A one hour lunch period to break up a grueling and inhuman 8 hour shift in to two more manageable 4 hour chunks makes the day easier to deal with. Where I work, however, there has to be a certain number of people on the job at all times, those with the same shift have staggered lunch breaks, which meant not so long ago I took my lunch after only two hours on the job (some kind of a labor violation I think) so that makes the break we do have even less useful for reducing the stress of the day.

When I got hired, during the interview, the manager of my department mentioned the half hour policy and said she advised I bring my own lunch to work like she did, because by the time you went anywhere for lunch, even for take-out, by the time you got back your break would be over. While this is true, because there are no really close eating places near our office, many still get in their cars and rush up to the food court a few blocks away. I do it myself from time to time, but most often join the many others who plastic bag it (it used to be brown bag it, but nowadays all you see in the break-room refrigerators are plastic Walmart and supermarket bags) or bring frozen dinners and keep them in the freezers.

What I wonder is why they don't give us a full hour. It doesn't cost the company more money, because lunch is off the clock, we don't get paid for that time. Does anyone out there reading this know why a company would prefer half hour lunches for employees instead of hour long breaks? What's the logic behind it?

Sometimes I skip eating and take a walk. There is a hill around the corner that leads to an industrial park, and it takes about 20 minutes or so to walk the loop that takes you back to our building. I wish I had an hour, because then I could take my walk and eat lunch, or read or whatever. As it is I have to choose between various lunch time options, and be constantly looking at my watch to make sure I'm back in time (don't want to make the slave masters bosses mad).

Yesterday I was almost going to take my walk, but hunger overruled, so I got in my car, and, even though I'm trying to lose weight, I headed for the nearest McDonalds. When I got up there I felt a little guilty however, then looked over at the Quiznos across the way. The five dollar large sub deal sign persuaded me to go there instead. Inside a long line greeted me, but I ignored my watch, determined to get a foot-long turkey and cheddar and enjoy weight-loss sandwich bliss at my desk when I got back. That's how I justified a big sandwich, the Jared syndrome.

Surprisingly, it only took about five minutes to get through the line and be walking back to my car with my hot little sandwich in hand.

When I was back at my station, I gulped it down in under four minutes. I didn't want to be seen eating on company time.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Pakistan bans Facebook over Draw Muhammad Day

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Rand Paul: Mandate of Our Victory Is 'Huge'

Comparing Abortion to the Ku Klux Klan

This site argues (or seems to) that abortion was/is designed to eliminate or reduce the numbers of non-whites. It's not a new argument, and I don't endorse it or support any attempts to take the right to abort a pregnancy away, but I'm linking to it for comments and discussion. And while we're on the subject, there has been a dry spell as far as comments here lately, so get with the program people -not you DM- and comment. What are you waiting for, for me to write some real posts? Just who do you think I am, Don Emmerich?

From the site:

In America today, almost as many African-American children
are aborted as are born.

A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

Klan Parenthood

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Birth of the U.S. Federal Reserve

Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magician's secrets are unveiled. Here is a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, the pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A boring subject? Just wait. You'll be hooked in five minutes. It sounds like a detective story, which it really is, but it's all true. Based on Mr. Griffin's book of the same title, this address will shatter your old ideas about money and change the way you view the world.-The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Lecture on the Federal Reserve

End the Fed

George Reisman: The Future of Liberty

Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics

DM, Deep Cover Atheist?

Dennis Markuze, aka David Mabus, who currently posts most often under the Blogger profile DM (though he uses others) is a prolific spammer of copy-pasted crap that he slightly modifies periodically and leaves mostly at atheist (but also other) blogs and forums.

Ginx of Anything But Theist posted about him (Comment Moderation) and he responded with nothing but more of his incomprehensible lunacy.

But what if there is a method to his madness? What if I look at him through Bill Gnade's eyes? (see here for an example of Bill's logic). Could it be that DM is a fake? Not a theist at all but a raving atheist with a double purpose, to make theists look like loons while also providing pro-atheist links in his spam at the same time? Ingenious you say?

Mathew Miller makes the case by examining some recent DM rants:

...DM is not the psychologically damaged, mentally challenged psychopath he pretends to be, but is expressing an actual hatred of religion by actively mocking it. Not even a psychologically crazed moron could think any of his posts are actually convincing people or even defending his positions. What they are doing however is making people with religious beliefs look like clinically retarded idiots incapable of coherent thought. DM's rants embody everything the most hostile atheists decry about religion. He embodies the anger, resentment and violent undercurrent that lead to atrocities like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

In my opinion, Dennis Markuze aka David Mabus is too perfect a parody of religion to be anything but an act.

Dennis Markuze aka David Mabus Babbles Again

Monday, May 17, 2010

Music Monday: Blackout

I was falling fast. I sat on the couch, not paying much attention, watching a funny soccer comedy. Someone was singing something disturbing, but I let my attention drift to my own troubles.

She was somewhere else, going for training on a new job, and I wondered when I would hear from her again. Then we all got into the car of my friend's friend, some kind of small SUV. I can't remember the details, but she was staying over for a few days. We just went up to the supermarket on the corner, it was late and yet we filled two shopping carts and wondered if all the stuff would fit into the back of the car. There and back the song was playing over and over and I'd never heard it before, so I asked the virtual stranger what it was, and she produced the CD, let me look at it. I later bought it at the last remaining Tower, and listened to only that one track, over and over...

Don't kid yourself,
And don't fool yourself,
This love's too good to last,
And I'm too old to dream...

Don't grow up too fast,
And don't embrace the past,
This life's too good to last,
And I'm too young to care...

Don't kid yourself,
And don't fool yourself,
This life could be the last,
And we're too young to see

Refuting 20 Capitalist Myths

Move To Ban Bullfighting In Spain

There is a growing anti-bullfighting movement in Spain? I guess so...

A History of Bullfighting

Spanish rights group calls for bullfighting ban debate.

Here is a petition to ban bullfighting, though I should make it clear that I'm not in favor of any new laws on this or anything else.

From the petition site:

Every year 250,000 bulls die slow and torturous deaths as a result of the bullfighting industry. While many of us imagine the matador piercing the heart of the bull with one quick movement, in reality the bull is repeatedly stabbed, skewered and slowly weakened as it bleeds to death.

The gruesome killing of hundreds of thousands of bulls is done in the name of entertainment and has no place in our modern society. It is time to update this outmoded tradition and start treating animals more humanely.

Reality of Bullfighting: Cruel and Barbaric.

Blog of the Moment: Labor is Not a Commodity

Labor is Not a Commodity

Kalpona Akter, a former child factory worker from the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity, told of the grave working conditions occurring in the garment factories of Bangladesh. From poverty wages not being able to cover half the expenses for one person to the threatening and dismissal of workers who try to organize, Kalpona gave all an inside look at the neglect to worker’s rights and safety that the Bangladesh Parliament has for the many factories they own. Kalpona also reminded everyone of the tragic Garib & Garib Newaj Bangladesh factory fire that killed 21 employees and injured 50 others this past March. Workers’ efforts to escape proved to be both futile and fatal as factory doors had been previously locked.-Reportback from 2010 “Sweatshop Workers Speak Out” Speaking Tour

Saying one thing and doing another

On Saturday evening I told myself that I would put off the drinking and partying for at least a few weeks.

I lasted an entire night. ;)

This song is going to have a whole new meaning for me some time within the next year...

Related Posts with Thumbnails