Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Prohibition went into effect.
Today, we have federal regulations against possessing, consuming or selling drugs. I think Ron Paul’s stated position is the most sensible one here…
…his stated position. This is true of all of Dr. Paul’s positions all across the board. As stated, they are very nearly always correct. The problem is that he’s crazy.
But the federal government has no role here.
Mind you, that isn’t what the cokeheads and the potheads and the meth-heads are screaming about when they whine away about the “war on drugs.” They don’t want the states to be put in charge of it, they want it to be legal. And if it isn’t legal, they want to be able to puff and snort away anyway, and if they can’t they feel their “civil liberties” have been trampled.
Getting back to the subject of alcohol —
It’s okay, potheads and cokeheads. It’s perfectly alright. Your hard drugs are illegal, alcohol is not. That is FINE. And no, I don’t have to explain why.
Prohibition on alcohol was doomed to failure from the very start.
Although womens’ suffrage would not take effect until the following year, this was undeniably a play on the emerging female vote. Which has obvious implications about what should be done next — but no, I am steadfastly opposed to revoking the female right to vote.
We have a lot of wonderful things because we have allowed women to do stuff. Sooner or later…maybe in my lifetime…we’ll have something wonderful because we allowed them to vote. Someday. Right now, it’s just JFK, Bill Clinton, Prohibition — and maybe Clinton’s wife, who knows. That’s the bad stuff. The gals are going to give us something good to even it all out. Real soon now.
So don’t revoke that suffrage.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think it’s interesting, that the rhetoric and justification for both the gun-grabbers and drug-prohibitionists is identical:
“A person could be irresponsible with a firearm and bring harm to themselves or others.”
“A person could be irresponsible with their drug use and bring harm to themselves or others.”
Granted, one of these is an explicitly defined right, and one of these is an implicitly defined right, but at the same time, such prohibition (as in 1919) is illegal unless backed by a constitutional amendment.
- dcshiderly | 01/17/2008 @ 15:40