Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
confusion
Why would someone think it's wise to embrace the defining tactics of a political movement that has been stomped, repudiated and crushed?
Uh, because they're part of that movement and continue to believe in it, and because it hasn't actually been crushed, just rebranded?
Monday, October 19, 2009
expectations
Criminalizing cancer and AIDS patients for using a substance that is (a) prescribed by their doctors and (b) legal under the laws of their state has always been abominable. The Obama administration deserves major credit not only for ceasing this practice, but for memorializing it formally in writing.- Glenn Greenwald
What other abominable things does BO deserve credit for not doing?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
please consider sending Arthur Silber some money. he's a brilliant writer living in desperate poverty and illness. every little bit helps.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 04, 2009
responsibly avoiding responsibility
Nina Alexander, the prosecutor who went after a grandmother who bought more cold medicine for her 3 grandchildren than the law allows one person to buy within a week, says basically: "I am incapable of distinguishing law from morality, and thus am absolved of any responsibility for anything I do that follows the letter of the law. I am a robot, programmed by the state. You wouldn't get mad at a robot, would you!?"
My favorite part was her demented nanny-state logic whereby a law that results in chaining, caging, and fining the poor old lady trying to care for her sick grandkids must be "a good law because it has had the desired effect, i.e. a reduction in meth manufacturing and meth use." By Nina's logic, a law that says anyone suspected of using meth must immediately be shot would be a good law.
As always, the lesson is that the state poses more danger to you than it prevents. A secondary lesson is that law is a religion, and a particularly pathetic one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
