- KentForLiberty- Home
- Zero Aggression
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Counterfeit "laws"
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Privacy & ID
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- My Job Search
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Monday, June 30, 2008
I have seen the above quote attributed to several people, so I will let you sort it out. All I can say for sure is that it didn't originate with me. But I do agree with the quote, "extremely".
It seems that there are a lot of people, even self-proclaimed "libertarians", who disagree with that quote, though. Yes, I am an extremist when it comes to individual liberty. So? There can be no compromise; no equivocation; no "ifs, ands, or buts" because: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” (Ayn Rand)
I will not ever call for the killing of innocent people, nor have I ever done such a thing. It violates the ZAP. However: "In self defense and in defense of the innocent, killing is not murder, hesitation is not moral, and cowardice is the only sin." (Dean Koontz). If you do not want to be subject to being killed in self-defense, it is an extremely simple thing to avoid. Don't attack the innocent. It isn't that hard, I promise. If your job makes it an impossible standard to live up to, then you should change jobs.
Don't mistake resolve for anger. I am not angry, and in fact, I am happy and relaxed. I simply will not be pushed. I will not compromise. I will be a soul-mirror: the attitude you approach me with will be reflected. Approach me with a full recognition that I am aware that my rights are an inborn trait, not subject to your wishes, and we will have no problems since I have the same understanding and awareness of your rights. I have no pathological desire to rule you or your children. I will consider any attempt to rule me or my children as an unjustified attack. Yet, I am not angry. Just resolved. Too many have been too polite to those whose behavior and attitude do not warrant politeness. Look where it has led.
If you take this as a threat, then obviously you are planning to attack an innocent person, or you support those who do. Either way you need to examine your beliefs and positions. You are on the side of the aggressors.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
I wrote this in response and it was published on June 19, 2008. You can get the gist of his editorial by my response, but it is not available online.
In your Border Banter column of June 12, you seemed to be saying that politicians are not doing the "right things"; that with different scoundrels in office, the process would "work". It isn't the particular scoundrels that are wrong, it is the process.
Your hero, FDR, set many of the things in motion that have led to our current situation. Socialism by any other name still doesn't work. Gridlock in congress is the safest course of action. There are more than enough laws to interfere with our lives for centuries to come without any new ones being passed. The best way for government, at any level, to help the middle class is to get out of our way and let us do what we do best: build America one person at a time. The same for the health care crisis. Allow people to choose their medications or health care providers without state interference. Allow doctors to prescribe alternative treatments they feel might work better and cheaper for a particular patient. More government always brings a cost that is greater than the benefit. I have enough sense to make decisions for myself. Don't you?
Inflation is a phantom. The real problem is that our money has been stolen by government printing presses. When your money is not backed by anything of value, such as gold or silver, and more can be printed out of thin air, it will always lose value. Fiat currency creates the illusion of price increases as it sinks towards worthlessness. A gallon of gasoline still costs about the same as the silver content of a pre-1964 quarter. Think about that for a moment. Gas at a quarter per gallon, except that our "new" non-silver quarters are no longer worth a quarter, but only about a penny.
Redistribution of wealth is wrong. Controlling the lives of people who are harming no one but themselves is wrong. To allow a majority to vote to violate the rights of a minority is wrong. As long as you have a system that allows or even demands such things, our society will still be sick with all the bad things you griped about: inflation, silly regulations, clueless politicians, healthcare crises, and a middle class that bears the burden of the parasitic class of Rulers.
Sincerely, Kent McManigal
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Remember that "The Law" is a weapon. When a weapon is used against you in an attack, there are 3 possible outcomes: You will be defeated (killed or surrender, no real difference); You will escape; Or you will seize the weapon from the attacker and use it against him, leading to another set of those 3 possible outcomes.
"The Law" is the primary weapon the state uses against free people. Its guns only come into play when "The Law" has not gotten the result the state demands. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, when attacked with "The Law", to seize it and use it against the aggressor. It is less acceptable to use "The Law" against non-state aggressors. There are more ethical ways of defending yourself against them.
As a possible example of using "The Law" against the state: If your state forbids concealed carry, or "requires" a permit, but "allows" open carry, use "The Law" to rub their noses in it. Carry your gun openly wherever you go. Depending on where you live, you will probably be harassed, so only do this if you are willing to be treated like a leper.
There are plenty of other examples I am sure you can think of. Just remember: don't judge those who use "The Law" against the state, nor those who refuse to do so. Both options may be right for different people.
Friday, June 27, 2008
You can try to instill responsibility and self-governance in your kids, but that doesn't mean it will "take". Even a toddler has the ability to do things that the parents disapprove of. Sometimes without the knowledge of even the most vigilant parent. The tots don't yet have the ability to accept the consequences of their actions, but does that mean their parents automatically are responsible? Even if the parents did nothing wrong and did the absolute best they could? To punish a person for the actions of another is a collectivist idea; one that disturbs me on a deep level, even if the person is assumed to be the "owner" of the other person (which seems to be the assertion when parents are punished for the actions of their kids).
I think about this because my family gets very disturbed by my activism. I am way beyond the age where my parents would reasonably be held accountable for the things I say and write, yet they still feel that what I say, in these blogs and in letters-to-editors, sometimes reflects badly on them.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
So, they ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that whatever limits they wish to place upon that right, such as permits, licenses, fees, and prohibitions on effective weapons of military design (the exact weapons specifically protected by the Second Amendment) are OK. Just as long as they pretend it is not an outright ban on guns.
Wrong again, psychos. Rights can not be limited, restricted, licensed, or abolished; but only respected or violated. Guess which side of the fence you have come down on once again.
Religion has a lot in common with drug use. Either one can be used in moderation or can be abused. Both can change your perception of reality. Both can make you happy while the effects last. Both have, at various times, been mandated or forbidden. Neither one harms anyone but the "self" as long as it is not coercively pushed on anyone else, and as long as it leads to no aggression. There are those who can point to a lot of aggression that both have caused when abused. Those who participate in both try to get more people to join them, saying that you just need to "try it to understand it".
To support the "War on (some) Drugs" is to make it more likely that the same excuses will be used to declare a "War on (some) Religions" as well. Remember that you do not own your neighbor's life; he does. Or, if you are of the religious persuasion: God does. In neither case do you have any say in what he does as long as he is harming no innocent person. None. To behave otherwise is to initiate force against him "for his own good", which is never really for his own "good".
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
No one is ruling you right now.
You are the owner of your own life.
This is reality; not the nonsense spewing from those wanna-be dictators who issue draconian edicts in an infantile attempt to control you from afar.
This is the sound of anarchy.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What would it have been like in 1930s Germany if their government had used similar campaigns? For Jews, the "Stars or Bars" campaign would have reminded them to wear their Star of David patch. "1 Night of Sparkling Shards" could have gotten more government sympathizers to join in for Krystalnacht. Make up a catchy slogan and anything can be made to seem reasonable to some people, I suppose.
You may accuse me of overblowing the situation with the comparison. Maybe, but if so if is only a matter of scale, not of substance. Once people begin to accept the unacceptable, anything is possible.
Statism isn't "nicer" today just because it uses actors portraying LEOs (Liberty Eradication Officers) in TV ads to indoctrinate or frighten us into accepting oppression. Hitler's disadvantage was that he didn't have the US government's ad men working for him. Oh, and he was probably even more evil (but give them time).
Monday, June 23, 2008
I have written before that eminent domain is a disgusting act of theft-by-government. This is an important issue to keep in mind, and refuse to excuse. I wrote this when I began blogging:
This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government. I realize this is a
long-established practice, but it is still wrong. If you or I desperately want a
certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find
another piece of land. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality. Government
should not own land, much less steal it. There is no such thing as "the common
good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.
Here is some information I received about Kelo Day:
You may have read about one of the Institute for Justice's (IJ)
historic Supreme Court cases called Kelo v. New London, in which a
homeowner, Susette Kelo, held out against a private developer seeking to turn
her home into debris by way of eminent domain. The court ruled in favor of
New London, and paved the way for property rights of individuals to be
substantially and absurdly quashed in the twenty-first
This Monday is the third anniversary for the Supreme
Court's infamous decision. For the anniversary, Susette Kelo is hoping
that those who strongly oppose eminent domain support the IJ in its effort to
end eminent domain abuse. You can help support this powerful
message by donating to the Institute for Justice, and help curtail the
incidence of eminent domain abuse, which in the past five years
alone included over 10,000 cases.
To donate or to view more
information, check out www.ij.org/keloday
And then also:
The lawyer in the Kelo case argued the wrong argument and that is why Mrs. Kelo
lost her case and walked away with a pittance. If the case had been centered
upon just compensation per the Monongahela Navigation Company case, she would
have greatly benefitted financially from the transaction.
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312
“What amount of compensation for each separate use of any particular
property may be charged is sometimes fixed by the statute which gives authority
for the creation of the property, sometimes determined by what it is reasonably
worth and sometimes, if it is purely private property, devoted only to private
uses, the matter rests arbitrarily with the will of the
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Maybe it is like a reality show for them. After all, garbage like "COPS" has been polluting minds for many years now. So the "good citizen" hears about Person X and the accusations against him; sees Person X go to trial and then to jail; then gets giddy at the prospect of Person X suffering extra-judicial punishment at the hands of the other prisoners. I just don't get it. I realize that we are all just one set-up away from being locked up on some bogus charge. Yes, even the most "patriotic" among us. The crimes that elicit this response the most often are also the easiest for the enforcers to fake.
On the other hand, when some attacker gets culled from the gene pool by an armed, free Human, I don't shed a tear. It is simply that I don't, and never will, trust the state and its methods or goals.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Some of them gravitate towards jobs, such as in government, where they can use coercion to control others, while some simply exercise their coercion and control in their private lives. Either way, they seek to become the tyrant of their own mini-kingdom.
My desire to control others ends at the borders of my own existence: Try to force me to do your bidding, and I will try to control, limit, or end your ability to coerce me, or if that fails, I will simply resist. I think this puts me in a definite minority (again). Ah well. I am used to it.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Because the money goes to finance more government. That is the last thing any of us needs. If a person initiates force against another, restitution should be paid to the victim, not to the state! How does paying the state make sense to anyone? I know that many court cases are "Person v The State of Coercion" or whatever, but unless there is at least one real, individual victim, there was no "aggression" committed.
Tax penalties and fines only make sense to those who see nothing wrong with more money financing more government to pass more "laws" to collect more fines to... and so on, in order to clamp down on individual liberty even harder.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I spent today, June 18 (and actually, the past couple of days as well), doing my "Random Acts of Anarchy". I think that because no one has suggested another date, I will declare June 18th as my "Anarchy Day". It also happens to be my birthday, but that seems a good date for Anarchy Day to me. Join me if you like, or declare your own date.
If you would like to participate next year, it will give you a year to plan ahead. Maybe the 18th of each month could be a "Mini-Anarchy Day".
So, what did I do to celebrate my public, helpful anarchism? I flew my Time's Up flag and picked up litter in the campground where we were staying. Anarchists beat the statists once again!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
I realize that in many European countries, a "hooligan" is a violent criminal; someone who initiates force. That is not what I mean when I use the term, nor do I expect that is what Mr. Smith or his friend meant. A few years ago, I saw a local newspaper call some teens who were being "typical-teen rowdy", but not causing any real harm, "hooligans". I still get a chuckle from that occasionally.
I see a "hooligan libertarian" as someone who is a radical libertarian and who isn't always exactly "safe for work". He will probably tell the truth as he sees it even if he knows it will offend someone's sensibilities. Even if every other self-proclaimed libertarian wants the message to be downplayed and softpeddled, a "hooligan libertarian" will probably not back down from what he knows to be true. This doesn't necessarily mean he is cold hearted, but that sometimes the truth hurts, and the kindest action, in the long run, is to "rip off the bandaid quickly".
So that is why I am "Kent McManigal, the Hooligan Libertarian".
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Live free or die? Scratch that! Live free or kill those who would prevent it!* Hey, its better than giving up and dying if they try to take your freedom!
*I don't think this is threatening anyone, but is the very essence of self-defense. If you feel differently, as ENM does, I am sorry, but I don't know any other way to express the commitment to live free without drawing a line in the sand. I have never even hurt anyone, since no one has ever crossed that line (or at least no one has crossed it and stayed across). I hope no one ever forces me to make that decision, but to equivocate about whether I will defend my life and my liberty would be exactly the way the aggressors would like for us to all act. They want us to be too afraid to say "No more!" That just leads to more aggression and less liberty.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
"Back when the old US government was ruling this region, borders and immigration were big points of contention. The borders gave government agents a great excuse to 'earn' extra bonuses and exercise their inflated authority. Too few people recognized that a wall keeps you in as effectively as it keeps 'them' out. Or even more effectively. The state kept demanding more and more documentation of Americans, using the dreaded 'illegal immigrants' as the boogeyman. The true migrant aggressors never were worried about documentation. So, once again, the 'government solution' only harmed those who were not part of the problem. You see the same pattern emerge time and again.
"Only one side of the issue was given much attention: the aggression (usually called 'crime' back in the Era of Government) caused by independent migrants. The other side; the positive benefits, were ignored or downplayed. As is always the case, the migrants were 'taking over', costing 'us' millions, speaking some other 'unAmerican language', or had 'different values'. A hundred years before they would have been accused of cannibalism.
"The government was assumed to own all the land within 'its' borders, otherwise there would not have been an issue. That was the only justification, faulty though it was, for not allowing property owners to administer the use of their own property.
"Now that America has no government, and the governments of some nearby countries are entering their death throes, the border situation has become a bit cloudy. People come here; people leave here. Only the governments worry about it. Many Americans earn a profit ensuring safe passage into and out of free territory. That enrages those nearby governments, but they are too busy trying not to evaporate to do much about it. And each new freedom-loving friend who moves here is one more 'for our side'.
"Since there is no more welfare of any kind, no one moves to America to get free anything, except for opportunity. Since self-defense has become standard practice again, aggressors stay where they are safe: under the wings of government. So many new businesses are started by these 'liberty-migrants' that there is no way to compare the economy before and after. A 'singularity' has been achieved. Businesses compete for any new employee they can get. The pay for those workers has also skyrocketed, and with no more state to tax or extort, they keep that money and then often start more new businesses. You see why I say a 'singularity' occurred.
"As news of free territory leaks back to those other countries, still languishing under government, more people choose to stay and change their own land than choose to move here. Love for 'home' is strong. Liberty is a wildfire sweeping across the face of the planet. I can't predict with certainty, of course, but based on past experience, I would say government as an acceptable human activity is in its last decade. It will die everywhere as it did here, and not a moment too soon."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
"Liberty" means doing what you want to do as long as you are not harming any innocent person with your actions. It means that YOU own your body and your life and are the sole proprietor thereof. If you destroy yourself, you accept the responsibility and you deal with the consequences. You do not blame others or take the easy way out by becoming a parasite.
"Libertarians" are people to value "liberty" above all else. They are not people who value the "US Constitution" above everything, but they can and do use it to point out how far America has fallen from its early semi-libertarian ideals. Liberty is not possible when there is a government calling the shots. Even a very small, weak government harms liberty. It is just not possible for government to exist without doing so. This is why libertarians are also anarchists. I know there are those who disagree with me. They can take it up with greater experts than me.
"Anarchy" means "no Rulers"; not "no rules". Yes, I know the dictionary also equates it with "chaos", but that is because common, incorrect, usage has burdened the real definition with the faulty one. This has happened with many words because we speak a living, changing language. To have a word that means "'No Rulers'; not 'no rules'" we would need to make up a new word every few years. It is the nature of language and can't be avoided. This is why, when I speak of certain things, I post (somewhere in my blog) what I mean when I use the word. This is one of those cases.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
It is wrong to steal from people. That means that Nigerian scams, taxation, armed robbery, burglary, looting, and shoplifting are wrong. If it is not yours, and the owner doesn't want to give it to you as a gift, you have no right to take it. Making veiled threats to coerce the owner into parting with his property is just as bad. There is never any justification for these acts of aggression.
It is wrong to break an agreement such as a contract without an agreement between the signatories. If one party unilaterally breaks the deal, the deal is off. For one side to break the deal and then try to hold the other side to their part of the deal is wrong. Business or marriage partners, and constitutional governments are frequent violators where these deals are concerned. It is also wrong to trick someone into getting into an agreement (by lying or hiding the truth) that they would not otherwise accept. This behavior is wrong. There is never any justification for behaving in this way.
If you are doing something that harms no one but yourself, you have the right to continue doing it. Even if everyone else thinks you shouldn't. In that case, even if you are doing something stupid and self-destructive, if they use kidnapping ("arrest") or theft ("fines") to punish you or to force you to stop, they have crossed the line from right to wrong. Your "saviors" are committing evil.
There seem to be a lot of people in the world who believe that "right and wrong" are not clear concepts. Especially if the government is the organization committing the evil actions. Perhaps their parents did not choose to teach their children to respect others. They should have still learned the lessons before they lasted very long in "the real world". Unfortunately, most people get their "education" at the hands of the government indoctrination centers. These "public schools" have no interest in teaching such concepts since it might make children question why it is that evil acts are OK if the state is the the one doing them.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
America in 2008 is a land and a time of universal deceit. It is odd, and disheartening, that when I speak out in defense of liberty I get accused of being a bad person. It happens time after time. Just because I think it is deplorable that dishonest cops can entrap pedophiles online, I am assumed to be "pro-pedophile"...or worse. Just because I will not turn my back on my parental responsibilities and let bad(ge) guys do my job for me, I am assumed to be childless.
It is absolutely sickening that America has fallen so far down the collectivist rat-hole that people can say such things about my comments on a newspaper's website, and about me personally, and no one else says "Hey, you know... maybe it is wrong for cops to become online predators themselves in order to catch pedophiles." Who cares if the Supreme Court says it is "legal"? "Legal" is not the same as "right". Am I the only one who still believes that two wrongs DO NOT make a right? If you violate the worse aggressor's rights, you will violate the most innocent person's rights, too. Just give it time.
Notice too, that they threaten to initiate force against me, by throwing the state at me for speaking out. Who was supposed to teach them right and wrong? They are also against free speech, I guess. I wonder if they believe like Bush does when it comes to the highest law of the land: the Constitution. They obviously have no respect for the Bill of Rights.
To think that these poor people believe they are "patriotic Americans". They turn a blind eye as the police state grows and becomes more and more dangerous with each passing day. They are so wrapped up in wanting to punish someone that they can't see that these same methods will eventually be used against them as well. Everyone does something that either is, or will be, frowned upon by the state. And not all of those things involve actual initiated force or fraud. Yet the state kills those people just as quickly.
It is sad that they feel the need to hate me so much. They are comfortable in their ignorance. I hope they enjoy being loaded onto the cattle cars by their "friends" in government when their "patriotism" isn't enough anymore. I'll still be speaking up for their rights when it happens.... if I am still around.
Monday, June 09, 2008
"When I suffered from liberty, I was always facing consequences for my actions. Some of those consequences were scary and uncomfortable! Now I don't need to take responsibility for my actions anymore. Government will take care of me!
"Thinking for myself is a thing of the past. I don't have to wonder now if something is right or wrong; Government tells me if it is 'legal' instead! Talk about convenience!
"Government makes the decisions about what medications I should be allowed to use; how and where I can travel; how to spend my money; and so many other things that used to burden me so terribly! But no more!
"Government saved me from the burden of self-ownership. Ask your doctor if Government is right for you! You'll be glad you did!"
Warning: Government may cause lack of morality and/or common sense. If victim disarmament or genocide occur, discontinue use and see your doctor immediately. If tyranny persists, or gets worse, discontinue use and do not seek a replacement Government. If you have a Government that lasts longer than 150 years, make nooses and seek revolutionary solutions. Government is a product of Coercion Unlimited, International.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
"Police forces only existed for less than two centuries, yet many of the people feared that without them, society would erupt into chaos. We may laugh at their fears now, but to them, under constant brainwashing, it seemed a real threat.
"So police forces were set up everywhere. The counterfeit 'laws' that they enforced became more important to them than the safety or liberty of the people whose stolen money paid their salaries. Most of them began to see themselves as 'above the law'. They were rarely held accountable for the aggressions they committed. On the occasions where a person dared to stand up to their abuses, any lawsuit awards were paid with more stolen money rather than through restitution by the aggressor. This did not teach the out-of-control enforcers any lesson other than that they had a blank-check to commit tyranny. They were issued electrical torture devices that were somewhat less deadly than their guns, and they had a heyday zapping people of all ages for the slightest infraction of their rules.
"A few people spoke up against these badge-bullies. When this happened, the enforcers always lied that 'I don't make the laws; I just enforce them'. As we all know, without enforcement, there is no 'law'. Therefore the blame rests directly on those who make the conscious choice to uphold tyranny. Real rules need no enforcement by a special group. It is, and has always been, up to each of us to own and protect our own interests without harming any innocent person. Society will see to that through self defense, freedom of association, and shunning.
"After the evaporation of government, you might expect that all these enforcers joined their masters swinging in the breeze, yet the existence of the Enforcers' Homes proves that forgiveness is always an option. Most of these pathetic creatures would have died for lack of anyone willing to trade with them due to the popularity of shunning. Yet, charities were set up by those who felt that every human life, even the most destructive, has value. It is true that only about half of the residents of these Homes are actually former enforcers; the rest were 'criminals' from the other side of 'the law', but the two sides have always had a symbiotic relationship and more in common with one another than with the peaceful majority of people. It is a good arrangement."
(*Counterfeit "laws" are those which attempt to regulate or control anything other than actual initiated force; either physical or financial.)
Saturday, June 07, 2008
PS: I'm fine, so don't worry.
So, you don't have to be an anarchist once you face the truth about government, but when you do face the facts, why would you not free yourself from fealty to the Clowns of Coercion? After all, you don't need them; they need you.
Friday, June 06, 2008
As long as they continue to think of themselves as important or "involved" while destroying liberty one ordinance at a time, they will keep doing it. Ridicule or a good "shunning" may make them see that what they did is wrong. If not, at least you will know where the root of the problem lies.
Liberty can not survive as long as we keep allowing these nutcases to have their coercive enforcers run more and more aspects of our lives. These people and their actions are absolutely despicable and should not be tolerated any more than you would tolerate a slave-trader operating next door.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
They are the ones who feel justified trying to run (and ruin) your life. It gives them and their worthless lives "meaning", at least to themselves. Some of them wear clownsuits with badges; some wear business suits that come with their own nooses as standard equipment. None of them deserve any respect; only derision and ridicule. Adults mind their own business; spoiled children try to control those around them. It is time to start being amused by these clowns when they put on their act for us, and long past the time for taking them seriously and obeying their nonsense.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
"This is one of the only surviving original copies. As you see here, it has no weapons with which to kill tyrants, so it couldn't actually protect liberty in any way. It didn't even spell out the penalty for violations by government agents. Therefore, the government became more and more coercive until it collapsed.
"That 'united States government' ignored the Constitution when it was inconvenient, which was anytime it would have impeded the growth and power of the government, with one criminal president even making some rather profane remarks about it when it was pointed out he was operating outside its authority. It was, as his fundamental point reminded Americans, just a piece of paper which did nothing to actually rein in his abuses. He forgot that it was the basis for any authority that he or his government had ever had, and once violated, 'the deal was off', as they say.
"That turned out to be a very good thing for individual liberty in the long run, but it did lead to some pretty bad short-term difficulties. When the government refuses to obey the laws that apply to it; the highest law of the land as it were, the people realize that they are no longer obligated to obey any of the 'laws' that the criminal government imposes upon them. When they have not been taught self-responsibility, bad times are sure to follow.
"A large number of ignorant aggressors, both former government and free-lance, died before a peaceful anarchy settled in. Such things always happen in order to allow the fit to survive. It is the way of nature and can be cruel, but in this case, the 'darwinized' individuals had a choice, they were even marginally educated about it if they survived more than a few weeks, and still they chose aggression and doom. Weep not for them, but celebrate our survival and our true liberty."
Edited to change the number. Apparently I can't count!
Read the rest here: Check Your Premises
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
I was talking to him a few days ago and he mentioned some of the odd things that the students are wearing. He was talking about the bizarre colored contacts (something which I thought of many years ago. I wanted mirrored or glow-in-the-dark ones). I said I thought that was really cool. He said that he has had townspeople call him after seeing kids with them after school hours and ask if they are allowed by the dress code! As if the school should regulate what the kids wear after school! This is when I told him he should tell those "concerned citizens" that they really needed to get a hobby!
It is no wonder society is so messed up. People are so worried that someone is not "conforming" that they make it their business to meddle with things that hurt no one in any conceivable way. It explains a lot.