Those Crazy Conversations.

What do people expect?

What people?

Idunno those people.

Oh them.

The ones who are so. Soooooo.....

They're soso? Why do you care then?

I don't.

You say that a lot from what I've seen.

Okay well on the radio on uh, KFI, the uber-conservative but not really they just are entertaining, the John and Ken Show...one of their shticks is like, "bad people need to go to jail." Right?

Bad people go to jail.

And this is a good thing 'cause...because they're bad.

If you start getting too fast for me I'll let you know.

Awesome okay so....and one of their really like, they can rally all the common folk and such like, ummmmm they held like huge rallies to have the "Recall Governor Davis" petitions signed back in late 2002 and in that same way they tend to get everyone

Everyone.

Well everyone, quote-quote everyone. Everyone listening to them and they're a highly rated show. So a huge enough chunk and I'm sure everyone who listens to them probably like to think of themselves as normal.

How dare they.

Yeah. But like, normal people common sense based rationality

uh oh.

Uh oh indeed matey.

*raises eyebrows*...matey?

...okay okay okay so one of the rallying concepts on the show related to "bad people need to go to jail and they should" is "child molesters are bad people and should not be paroled or released lightly."

*folds arms* ...and does this idea account for-

Yes as ...I'm pretty certain it does, they ... I'm pretty sure they've said like oh well a 17 year old and an 18 year old who cares type of stuff. But the real bad people...yeah.

So what?

Sooooo so another big deal they've uh...voiced is the controversy over the fact that these umm they get paroled or they get out of jail and then they live like in these certain areas and then the neighbors around don't like it and they have a bunch of rah rah bullshit to 'cause a stir and then the offenders end up unable to live there or the lisence for the home itself is revoked or something like that.

Isn't that good? Do you want them to live in your neighborhood? You live within a mile of two elementary schools. You sure as hell know what it's like to have the angst of if only I lived in a different area 'cause of this.

One thing I've noticed maybe it's from the work I do and seeing all the descriptions of houses saying "near schools" and such is that...schools are everywhere. Parks are everywhere. As far as uh, zoning agencies are institutionally capable of being either rational or market-oriented or uh, sensitive to the demands by citizens, there sure as shit seems to be a lot of schools and other places for kids to get picked up at.

Yeah well

and ....oh fuck that like ... even accounting for actual abductions and such of just blatant right out off the sidewalk or whatever, so much of that stuff happens to people who are left alone with a kid, so they've already manipulated their way past the sposedly responsible but hopefully just stupid adult....

You're pissed off.

Well what do they want? The people with the "NIMBY" attitude.

They...don't want them living near them. Even in the ideal of homeschooling or whatever, those kids socialize so there's a risk.

Yes and I get that. But it's like...society won't kill them, but apparently doesn't want them to live, either.

...uh. Society won't kill them? I think you've been raised around too many women. Society definitely would kill them to the detriment of society.

How would that

blood fueds. You heard of it in a divorce settlement, the so called wife would tell CPS that her daughter was being abused all the time by her father. She was making so many obviously bullshit claims to try to prolong custody hearings and all that that the social worker and her supervisor both rolled their eyes at seeing the names again. Now the fact that their common sense has been regulated into a chokehold is another matter entirely but. If there was no legal framework or institution by which this, what is basically a blood-fued, could be channeled without violence, there would be violence against this poor dumbass who really did nothing to his daughter and just wants to raise her right without the living contradiction that his selfish whore of a wife turned out or revealed herself to be. But all she'd have to do is tell some guy about it and boom he's dead. No, society would kill them. And then some. The law that keeps them alive for what you and many others understandably call "no reason" is in fact a very good reason. To protect the innocent; not the victims of actual abuse

ah ha!

Well once the victims of the abuse are assaulted it's kinda over and after the fact isn't it? Even if it isn't realized as "in the past" until years later. No in this case, by the innocent I mean someone wrongly accused.

Yeah but these guys are already convicted.

So....the legal system can totally get family/divorce courts totally batshit bassakwards, and dumbass potheads get thrown in jail and death row inmates can get vindicated on new evidence and all that...but when it comes to child molesters a very emotionally charged ... charge...when it comes to them oh yeah the system totally gets that perfect. Is that it.

Hmmm. Well that's my problem, not theirs. It's a lot simpler in the view of these NIMBYs.

How so.

Well the assumption that convicted = guilty, giving them the benefit of the doubt about the 18/17 relationship. Like, "rah he's guilty go to jail" and then "rah he's served his time NIMBY rah" ... if they're that adamant about it why not just openly advocate putting these people...who served their time, the time allotted by the government and legal structure that they put up with by virtue of continuing to be mouth-breathing dumbasses who think "jury nullification" means "a not guilty verdict"...they assent to this crap by not raising the hue and cry...why not just advocate them being dumped into a desert somewhere. But when that same legal institution, on the "innocent until proven guilty" acid trip for the past three hundred years or so that it's been on, does something basically consistent with the "innocent until proven guilty"...who are they to open their peasant mouths.

...What do you advocate then? Do you advocate dumping them all into a desert somewhere?

I can't say I do. Even though I'm sure I get a free pass to do so, it's not ideal because. Because I don't know. I can't think of any reason not to, but I still don't. Even if there was no question of their guilt. Them living in or within a society which if knew/when it knows of their presence, wants them gone though, is problematic too. The ones who are genuinely repentful of what they did do, they're not innocent of that thing in the past but are found innocent in the future afterwards, and all that, do not exist to these NIMBYs.

So let them live then?

I don't know. I don't pretend to know.

You don't pretend to know.

And I think that's what bothers me about the people who are nimbys about it, or who have "I'll sign this line of the Magna Carta here, but not this line there" inconsistent attitude.

This Is That One Song

If I don't laugh cruelly at this song I'll just break down crying 'cause. It's something I shouldn't listen to. Pickin scabs is nasty, yo. Anyway when I first posted this song somewhere else I didn't...I don't know if there even was youtube back then, I at least didn't know about it.



Oh and don't like, actually watch the video. I didn't really watch it so it has not my endorsement.

Idunno Why

I remember this stuff as it has nothing to do with me. Like the guy with the bumper sticker. But the phrase "if it's not a baby then you're not pregnant." Like...no abortion no babykillin blahblah. But then if someone is saying it's not a baby and then someone else says "if it's not a baby then you're not pregnant" then it's not an abortion so mind your own fucking business.

See? I don't care about that topic; I don't get myself preggers, and of course my situation being what it is right now--of course-- all I can think about is how I don't ever wanna be such not because aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah little people things ewww but like.

Hmm.

It sounds trite to say "ah well I don't know if I want to take on that responsibility." It's not really so much that (really? no not really but really) there's a threshold of responsibility that I don't want to cross but this conceit that I think I already have Things I Need To Do which a "normal" life would keep me from, which need to be done. Moreso than any enjoyment to be had from what I consider "normal."

And no I don't mean I neeeeeeeeed to like, get a doctorate in history because I have these oh so awesome ideas that no one else looks at that I yet know of (thus the not applying or looking at grad schools until I've read at least the books I own already) like ex or why or zed, or...whatever else boring crap I neeeeeeeeed to do, I don't really mean. Idunno. See I'm under the impression that right now I am being useful to others (no one you know, giggle giggle and not one I know either) already. And raise cats, giving them last names. And. And these people already exist. It's not my fault, not my doing. None of what I have to do with them is really of my doing either. None of those things would apply if I were to within the confines of any situation of varying social acceptability get preggers myself. But then if I really believed that I'd probably be spending more time actually doing my effing thesis like I'm supposed to be doing.

Anyway, that hideously uncomfortable tangent aside. I don't really care about the arguments either for or against the "oh if it ain't a baby then you ain't pregnant" type of issue. I mean well yeah my advice to someone with some sort of stake in such a thing would be rather predictable, but if the wrong choice is made well. Well it's not like they're not gonna be assloads full of guilt afterwards. And God likes babies, so...and if society wants itself to die out...can't really outlaw that, can ya.

Is This All There Is

I thought it was funny last quarter when I was in the class on colonial America oooooh not as "pre-Revolutionary America" but as "British Colonial history on the north American continent from the late 16th to late 18th century" ooooh secksay. But yeah so I got to do a paper on Bacon's Rebellion

...oh God.

I was looking for just a general link to somewhere that would just explain what Bacon's rebellion was, and then on to how all I've seen for the past three months or so from the readings related to it has been like...wow everyone really has been staring anarchy in the face this whole time but.

This was the second link right under the wikipedia entry (I won't read that 'cause I'm sure it will just piss me off.) And the money goes to:

Bacon's Rebellion demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause. This was a great fear of the ruling class -- what would prevent the poor from uniting to fight them? This fear hastened the transition to racial slavery.

Dudes seriously. It did not demonstrate that in the sense that it set out to do that. That's dragging the rebellion into...into I guess in this case the ideology of class warfare as understood by people today. Within the context of Nathaniel Bacon himself, he didn't give a damn about black people and he sure as hell didn't consider him or his followers to be poor people as opposed to the governor. Both he and Berekeley were keen on showing that they had the good awesome people on their side and the other side was supported only by the unwashed rabble (or the eeeevil conniving men).

Anyway.

You Have A Truck

and on the back of the truck is a nice humble little sticker that says in white text over red:

Ted Kennedy's Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun

And I know what you mean it to mean. But I just know there's someone who reads that and thinks wow. Why would someone get a sticker that says "I'm a crappy shot"?

I Don't Like Music Or A Dictionary

Irony is me getting choked up from Hank Williams' "Take These Chains From My Heart."

On Being Up Late For No Reason

There's really nothing like explaining some tangent on why you just said you believe X, and then the guy you're talking to just says "No." Double-bonus-swoon if he adds "I don't believe that because it's not in the Bible."

In other news, how odd it feels.

To have these dual feelings of both infatuation and of not giving a damn of what other people think. Or that like...I ought to feel this way.

Anyway, I've been getting Demon Hunter songs stuck in my head and well what else am I gonna do at 2 in the morning but look up lyrics online.

And was at first like woooooow this is rad stuff. Fun happy funtimes.

No day of wrath will see me break for that faithless breath of shame
When the heretics come to make that list, be true to speak my name
...
No man can bring a fatal sting and I laugh at the gallows thrall
Just line it tight around my neck so my words will break that fall


And this just stood out when I first listened to this album and still chills the back of my neck.

And those who curse the sky will face the earth

Because uh...because I'm a chick and emotional and read too much into stuff.

But then I read from this song and found it so damn funny.

Bury every sign of life in filth and hollow trend
And push against progression on the path of logic’s end
Like tears flowing upward

(Chorus)

With every waking second you front, another real life loses ground
Ten thousand arms outstretched and you have the nerve to strike them all
No reason to coexist?
No reason to exist

So yeah. The first two lyrics are from Grand Finale.

In Other News I Shall Not Segue Between Paragraphs

Democrat who held a one-man, five-month long filibuster in (congress or senate, not sure) the Nixon admin to get the draft ended and some other awesome shit, joins the LP as of like, day before yesterday, but omg he says that the Democratic Party is no longer "the party of FDR" and all of a sudden he's no good and not welcome and BUHJAAAYZUS THE PARTY IS OVER. Even though it took me about...thirteen seconds to find a video of him saying in a youtube video something about FDR... where he says fdr was rad because of the ending of Prohibition, and not for all the doctrinal reasons the Lp doesn't like him.

It's like, the libertarians are at a crowded party but standing in the corner looking up at a mirror that shows everyone else and sees everyone talking. And then thinks, well shit I can see everyone talking! They must be talking to me! Fucking retards. But I guess that counts as old news.

Does the fact that he's Mike....Gravel....like...does that fact compute with any of the people getting their panties in a twist over him joining?

I could totally understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth if this were, say. Rahm Emmanuel, or Nancy Pelosi, or Jorge the Younger joining the LP.


Now yeah, on prohibition that’s unlikely to have been FDR single-handedly, in fact I bet it’s just some obscure kool-aid no one’s drinking anymore but him, but he’s still talking about the war on drugs and not specie vs. notes.

He's not talking to Rothbard, he's talking to my idiot stoner brother.

Surely there were people who joined the Lp from the Democrat/so-called "left" side who just picked up the econ stuff afterwards...now obviously we can’t have all the huge name recognition and political clout of Mike Gravel, but still.

I've yet to see any anti-Gravelites even recognize the parallel about RP, much less explain how it isn't hypocrisy. Not that I really care enough to let the issue turn into how Ron Paul is soooo awesome.

The Government We Deserve

"It's your money, but it's your war, too."

Hurtzdonuts....yummy

[I'm pretty sure this was meant for an Lp forum thread on myspace, I thiiink amn't sure, but was in response to the question of like, should a state secede today, or would you support it, something like that.]

The reason why secession was seen as treason against the country was because the dominant thought (apparently throughout the Union/North) was that the Constitution was ratified only that one time at the Constitutional Convention. (It wasn't ratified at the convention but you know what I mean.) It was never set up as a contract subject to renewal by each generation of rabble-rousers/freedom fighters.

Oh yeah yeah "governments derive their just powers from consent of the governed..." and all that...but those words aren't in the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. There's not only a war but also another national compact between the two and the extent to which you can comprehend the change that made throws away the right of secession as a product of the Revolution. And no, the Revolution itself was not a secession movement, since the colonies were never anything but colonies. If they'd wanted seats in Parliament, they could have bitched and complained or behaved better and eventually gotten 'em.

The two major secession threats before 1860 were just that: threats. Overshadowed by destroyed political parties and denigrated, ideologically pigeonholed politicians on both sides (Jackson for his Crusade against the Bank, Calhoun for advocating slavery as a positive good by the end of his life); secession itself, as a right and valid response to perceived and real tyranny by the federal government was becoming the cry of "wolf."

By 1860 not only was secession not taken seriously because of its track record, but it was becoming a joke in the House/Senate.

'We are still just where we started six months ago, except that our Southern friends have dissolved the Union forty or fifty times since then." Congressman Schuyler Colfax, about conditions in Congress in 1859.

"There had been two overt attempts at secession already....the second upon the election of Speaker [of the House] Pennington, when the South seceded from Congress, went out, took a drink, and then came back. The third attempt would be...when Old Abe would be elected. They would then again secede and this time would take two drinks, but would come back again." -Congressman Carl Schurz, during the 1860 campaign.

[This is an old post I didn't even put in blogger, so finding where I got those quotes from will be a bitch but likely doable if called on 'em]

Even as a minarch, I refuse to recognize any morality associated with a government. If you think diLorenzo is the messiah of Civil War historiography, then you're missing out. On at least this. (it's a pdf. Skip to page 6 for the prices set by the government.)

If a state seceded today their temporal life would be guaranteed to be short and I don't mean of the state entity.

Like I Tried To Post On Earlier

I was thinking while I was scrubbing the inside of the tub.

consent of the governed.

Those governed...must give consent.

omg I never signed a social contract lolz...yeah you're hardcore. neat.

Anyway...those governed have to give consent. If they don't, the laws are bullshit. The authority is usurped and...invalid. It's not authority by law, but by force.

This I think is the idea or lingering concept from the American Revolution that best justifies secession in December 1860. Despite the awesomely smart move of splitting the Democratic Party ticket three ways, the South did not consent to living under a Republican administration. So far I don't think the reasoning is nearly as...grounded in genuine issues as Richard Wright defacing a ballot he was working/fixing on with "I protest this fraud" when he was young but...whatever. Not my bag. They did not consent so they Finally went through with it and seceded.

They were not allowed to do that. "consent of the governed" somewhere was bastardized into, well...

whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it blah blah

The right to abolish was demonstrably taken out. This form of government is destructive to the ends [securing the rights of life liberty blah blah] well then you have to work within the form of government...which is destructive to the ends. That way you have ordinary southerners not involved in politics defending the CSA, since yeah the politicians are dumbashell-- exempli gratia, the 1860 Democratic ticket(s).

Vote Ron Paul! Hell, vote Libertarian!

hahahahahahahaha...that was too much to resist. Anyway back to my program...

And I know I'm doing the thing I get annoyed at others doing...quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it means a damn thing today. But it's part of the Revolutionary period...I think there's some court case ruling from about ten years before '76 that would count for me as perhaps the beginning of that period. Gosh. Had to do with jury nullification, it was pretty awesome. The only class I didn't buy the books for. Oh-pression. So...far as I know, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the end of that. oooh maybe the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions too, but I'd have to read them.

"derives their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Who is governed? What is that.

Old enough to die for my country, but not old enough to buy a beer?

That's not everyone since children do not give consent to their parents (sorry to get all Molyneaux on y'all)...

*giggle*

but the state does.

But that's beside the point. Children are governed by their parents and indirectly, the state; di-rectly and tragicaly if they're wards of the court and not applicable.

And I'm still in minarchy, Libertarian, the American situation. Not asking to be shown the copy of the Magna Carta that has my name on it.

Who is governed.

Everyone. The laws affect. Everyone.

It's probably against the law for me to use a short barstool instead of a computer chair for the next couple days until my computer chair comes in the mail. I probably broke a law or several when I changed out of my pants and gray t-shirt and scrubbed the inside of the tub wearing hoochie short-shorts and a white t-shirt.

One of...well almost the only thing I learned from the "Revolutionary America" class I took a year ago, aside from my latent talent for writing essays full of spectacularly feminist-based nonsense (all my jokes wherein I sarcastically say feminist stuff like "holding me responsible for my actions is sexist" aren't really that funny anymore so much as they are quick occasional glances at a black cloud I know I don't want to stand under anymore)...was that there was

or the dominant paradigm for looking at America at that time period with an eye for how women and The Other was treated was

spheres of influence. The men had their sphere, including public life, politics, and beating and/or raping their wives. Or not...the instructor did mention once that the neighborhood would likely look down on a man who treated his wife exceedingly poorly. Didn't make a huge deal out of this, but she did say it. Or the other wives would nag the hell out of their husbands to tell that one bad guy to cut the crap.

Which brings to the women's sphere. Basically, the household and everything involved in that. And yeah...everything. Dust IS dirt.

And that was it. Laws did not address or pertain to women because.....laws were Over Here, and women were Over There.

But nooooow. Women somehow took ... I guess saw abolitionists (even though they didn't free slaves on a large scale, thanks to King Lincoln and his predilection for government agents shooting people, funny thing that).

Ooooh oooooooooooooh all men are created equal really means all people and was not limited to the cultural and political context of the meaning of the word men such as it was at the time, but actually applies to humans like Garrison and his silly ass is saying? hmmmm I is people.

So women wanted to go Over There. And now we are.

Result? Stories like this. Exponentially. And that's just in podunk-California in the early 1980s, who know how screwed that guy would be if it happened today.

So...thank you very much, all you insecure women who took Abigail Adams' letters way out of context, it's been swell, but the swelling ain't going down.

On Metal

I don't care how kickassy they sound, or how terrible my hearing of German is, but as soon as my brain carves out them saying "blahblahblah Sie sind Gott"

I will burst out laughing and turn that shit off.

Eventually, indignation is just silly.

I think it was this song. Urge to troll the comments with "lolz," rising.

On

On being fucking horrified at yourself from two years ago. Don't get much more fun than that, yo.

I want to point out awesomely that you are responsible for your own thoughts (sorta) and actions and all that goodthink. And then think how wow I am at thinking the right things. But when I turn it around into just retelling myself that I am responsible. Well then the party's over.

But anyway. To recap what I've already spilled.

I've tried so many times to explain it that I can't remember if I've actually posted before about the dreams I have er have had for the past oh idunno going on five years now where it's basically a rehash of being around my mom and she's flipping out screaming at me or somehow fucking things up usually in public and I'm freaking out too, either well not either but crying and like. Fighting with her. Trying to set things right. ha. Reliving the death that she's allowed herself to become.

and then waking up in the middle of the night because it's a horrible fucking dream and then kinda freaked out because holy shit dude I've been crying in my sleep and it's a good damn thing my nails are short 'cause I've had my hands balled up into tight fists by the time I come to. And of course it's like...3am and the room's dark and it's kinda

*tilts head back* kinda spooky to wake up in the middle of the night from a bad dream. Oh, it freaks you out too.

But only from her. The Other Stuff doesn't bother me. Unless I go back to it. Which admittedly I mistakenly thought I'd "have to" when I first talked to my dad, but no. He's got an idea of that... I guess at least that he knows there's stuff I haven't told him. I don't really want to tell him, not out of shame, but just that I don't need to upset him.

But only from her. Yeah there's some really graphic memories I have of too many other things, but as soon as I'm asleep they're gone I have gosh what's that called. I have rest.

So where was I going. Oh yeah. They started about four years ago. I move...no I didn't move. She got us evicted and called me at school about anyway that was about six years ago. Math is fun.

It got interesting when my dad told me that he's got PTSD for something and I looked up symptoms and wow gosh. Didn't really help too much or anything, or make it easier to deal with. But trivia is fun.

So last week I got one again. But muted. I was there and pissed off, but I wasn't alone, there was someone with me, and we both kinda...watched her. I probably told this person "my side" or something, but it wasn't nearly as intense a feeling of "have to make things right" as before.

Was it someone I know with me? *shrug* Don't remember. Don't think it was anyone in this life I know, or anyone in other, hey look over there, but just, someone.

Last night. Well, Saturday night/Sunday morning.

I left her. She started going ballistic, some guy threw my stuff out of the apartment for her (they looked like different people, but I don't even know what she looks like now anyway). I picked up some of the stuff, sold some other things, and left. Hitched a ride with someone, sold some other things, the guy who threw my stuff out tried catching up to me to lecture me. So I kept leaving.

And then woke up. Sorta.

Oh hey look a cartoon!

Because It's Awesome

Damn I've Missed You

So anyway. I'm "freaking out" over classes. Kicked ass at Colonial America midterm which I thought I did poorly on when I finished it, but the essay is a bitch. Because I have to like, write, and uh...gosh. Form sentences and can't cuss, or google image anything. For credit anyway.

I wish Jack In The Box would get all Americana themed and roll out a new sandwich, and call it the Nathaniel Junior Bacon Cheeseburger. Rename the french fries Rebel Fries which you dip in Injun blood, not ketchup.

Where do I send my resume.

Awww, the Girl-Student Is Thinking!

I'm gonna have to be setting down the tinfoil hat for a time, because all it can do is harm my GPA if I keep reading Holt's Rise...Whig Party, bother to finish Foner's Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, or splurge on old editions of Alan Nevin's books on Lincoln that are only $2 on amazon right now.

Not that I don't want to read them, and get totally lost in it all again, but I've already got enough bad grades as it is, and am kinda getting caught up in both my two classes on England (Formation of English Common Law, and Medieval England) and my Colonial America class.

Plus the required seminar for next (my last quarter) is either going to be...dun dun dunnnnnnn Colonial America, or Medieval Europe.

So after graduation my reading list goes back to the old list. A suggested goal was to not buy anymore books until I have read all of the ones I currently own...I'll probably take an exception to the books I'm mainly holding for Jon, meaning most of the ones on the First World War.

The German and Spanish grammars are gonna be biatches though. My Russian books make me cry with guilt.

But I leave the Antebellum politics with this.

The Republican Party which ran Fremont in '56 and Lincoln in '60 was not made up of only Whigs, and not just the lesser parties--Liberty, Free Soil, Know-Nothing Party--but also took in Democrats who left their party.

The DiLorenzo/Austrian Apologetic in me intuitively thought well no duh; the Democrats who joined the Republican Party were elitists who didn't understand the benefits of economics and all that...the "bad ones."

But no, according to Foner. It was the free-trade proponents and anti-elitists who left the Democratic Party. Leaving nationalizers and "elitists" (terror quotes as if it's always meant as a bad thing) to the Democratic Party, which was by then becoming I guess more intellectually and politically isolated as a Southern Party than a viable second party to counter the Republican Party.

I don't have the time or the lack of a huge ass reading list to develop it further right now.

Also, this has been on my mind since about late October when I first learned about the actual match-up in the 1860 Presidential campaign.

Okay okay, consent of the governed, had every right to secede, blah blah. I got that. An yeah okay okay, Lincoln was Teh Tyrant King, but let's all forget about Jefferson Davis wanting to nationalize the hell out of everything because Robert E. Lee was such a great man because he didn't have as many immigrants to use as cannon fodder as Grant did...who was a Bad Man, as was Sherman, because he got shit done too. And let's not forget how seriously pro-secession abolitionists were taken in the North, who never needed to sell newspapers by publishing sensational editorials.

All that aside, that secession was totally within everyone's right...running three...repatan por favor

THREE Democratic Party candidates for President? What really did anyone expect was gonna happen, but that Lincoln would win? omg he didn't win by a majority lolz...well, one, find me all the Presidents who DID win by a clear majority of the popular or even electoral vote, (before the near-deliberate exclusion of third parties in the 20th century) and two, he didn't need to. Did they think Stephen Douglas was gonna be worse than Lincoln, or

*rechecks wikipedia for 1860 election*

Or JOHN BELL? JOHN BELL, MOFOS! I got nothing for Breckinridge 'cause he was from Kentucky like Clay, despite his being vice-president to Buchanan.

I mean, gosh. Why not write in Ron Paul's name after he drops out of the race.

I got fingernails to paint, and hair to brush.

Molyneaux Overload or, To Kill An Hour

I am not a finger. I am my own palm.

All the fingers are really palms.

There is a gun in the room.

I is soooo thirsty for Kool-Aid about now. Note: he is atheist (I guess) so there eventually are some things that he is genuinely missing, though the most glaring example of that is not from these videos so much as his video on Free Will (a big shocker, I'm sure).

Part 1


Part 2

I Really Do Need It All Explained To Me Again

I thought I was having a problem with being a social personal conservative when, last week, I was defending Roe v. Wade, pointing out that IFF someone holds that the beginning of life is Not at conception, then...blah blah blah I'll get to it later.

But then I just read this and am not bothered by it at all.

"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

I didn't see anything saying that the ACLU was filing a brief to say that sex in a bathroom was okay, just that if you're gonna do it, you're unlikely to be planning to put on a show--there's nothing else that goes on in a stall that other people are gonna watch, so why is this any different?

It seems that a less "journalistic" title for the article would be "Restroom Stalls Are Private" or something...but whatever.

UPPO-DATO: realize that I never linked to the article, which I'm not gonna scrounge around for so too bad, and used the wrong adjective.

I'm not a conservative "socially." Or even "liberally," just personally. As in, I don't think laws should be around to regulate one's personal life, but not because I think the things that usually get regulated are awesome things.

Morpho-Syntactic Decline of the Roman Empire

caveat emptor is in the Subjunctive Mood.

Not the Imperative.

Meaning not just buyer beware

but let the buyer beware

Subjunctive Mood doesn't denote just prohibitively that the root verb is not a command and therefore not Imperative Mood (that is, B is not defined as just ~A)

but denotes positively an emphasis on the potentiality of the execution of the root verb.

May/might/should/ought...whatever. If you're stuck in English you can also use the Indicative Mood of allow et al, and stack up infinitive verb forms until the person next to you who is not interested in grammar at all starts crying. Or choking you.

Thus.

caveat emptor

is not, was not you buyer beware, use discretion in your purchases, you must do this

caveat emptor is, was

buy that right now. buy two and put it on plastic...that's what credit cards are for.