giggles, chortles, cackles and a hardy har har

By Margaret -
O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas: Our friends-of-the-potheads on the Supreme Court. All of them were appointed by republican presidents. Isn't that funny? Or do you have to be stoned to enjoy the irony?

I would hope that the six justices who sided on the wrong side of the medical marijuana ruling all get very ill from health problems that could be helped by marijuana. Unfortunately, I don't think they will have any problems getting any of this wonderful but illegal medicine so I'll just stick to condemning the six of them to the special part of Hell that awaits them.

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:38 AM

    That the court shot down medical pot is a great thing. It gives congress a chance to do its f*ing job. Hope the court do the same with abortion.

    Let the hereditary congress do some legislating, legalize weed and abortion, and stop hiding behind the court.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BJV10:06 AM

    You are perhaps the biggest optimist I've ever seen, counting on Congress to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Margaret4:46 PM

    So next time I see a crime in progress that I have the power to stop, I should move along and give the police time to show up and do their f*ing job? Feh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:32 PM

    Depends on what you call a crime... Or do you just accept the state's definition?

    Personally, I get a kick out of government failure, and the more obvious the failure the better for the long-run.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BJV7:51 AM

    Are you one of those guys who cheers as government gets bigger and more oppressive, thinking that will spur revolution or something?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous6:09 PM

    No. I feel that the expansion of the welfare state makes revolution less likely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Margaret1:17 AM

    Obviously, I can only call the police if it's one of the crimes they have jurisdiction over. Should I still move along if it's a different variety of crime?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:03 AM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:45 PM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous4:48 AM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more