Recent comments

  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    The incentive is to introduce the carbon tax as well as create an industry (or prop it up since I think carbon credit trading already exists) where big business can trade credits for polluting. Carbon taxes really wouldn't (in practice) reduce emissions (if you buy enough credits). However that would create "government jobs" to manage the whole process as well as increase revenue due to punishing the non-compliant. Customers always "pay" taxes, fees, levies, judgements (even against businesses). That's how it could affect you.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    O.K. A. Magnus, I am lost. You obviously know something I don't. It would be impossible to disagree with the thought "...what is being achieved by lying..."--it's weird because I cannot conjure any benefit for distorting the truth about global warming, or freezing, or etc. The threat implied goes beyond the sales of air-conditioner, or a efficient heater. It has to be something great, huge, gigantic, like controlling the population but for the life of me I cannot see how it plays out that way, so, what is the objective, what are we going to "make do with less so ruling class can have more." More what? What am I going to have to make due with less of.
  • A. Magnus's picture
    A. Magnus 4 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    "And what is being achieved by lying about these things? There has to be a bigger objective here." The objective is simple - WE must make do with less so that the ruling aristocracy can have more. Anyone who tells you otherwise either considers themselves to be part of the ruling elite or would gladly lick the elite's boots if they thought they could glean a choice crumb from their table.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    I don't know much about global warming, well, in fact I know absolutely nothing about it, but for me I haven't noted anything significant that would convince me it is. I recall back in the 1970's a Time magazine warned of a global freezing. Problem is is who do you believe. I am guessing most members here have little or no knowledge about Global Warming. Then of course there were the sky is falling idea that the sun is burning out--that was somewhere in the 1950's. Oh! Yes. There are the meteorite's that are going to take us out. What is the real purpose for publishing this kind of stuff? And what is being achieved by lying about these things? There has to be a bigger objective here. A conspiracy?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Well Jim, I am making a wild guess that you may not remember me, or perchance you really do. Maybe two years back we had some sharp words and one of us made specific threats. My absence for reflection has matured as much as a 72 year old man can reflect. But micro-aggression or full blown aggressions are simply not worth it. Simply respect one mans position Yea or Nea and move on. A kind remark seems to be reasonable, or care in crafting ones words together so as not to stimulate the emotions overflow into the exact opposite of which would not be becoming the Liberty and freedom. My concepts of this idea will probably be way off from others perspective, but that is where I am at. A kind of "Live and let live". I try to focus on the Non-aggression principle with any remark I might make, making sure I don't offend anyone. I may be wrong but sites of this nature I believe should be amenable to everyone who participates. I am going to stop here before I make a mistake and undo what I have or am attempting to do. Enjoy the ideas to mold my brand of ideology.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    You are an example to us all of tolerance and patience. Or of a thick skin - a valuable asset here.   So you served government all your working life and only then discovered the libertarian alternative; that explains it. I hope the QuitGov site is useful when you encounter younger, former colleagues.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Well Jim, thank you for the kind consideration of my condition and my latter ignorance. I too wish you could do something or suggest something to amelorate the condition. Yet, in government education at the time, regardless, I may have persisted in education and yes, gifting government my services because the pay was shit. Had I received a degree in engineering I would have made at least double if not more than what I would have received far greater respect for my profession--my specialization was teaching Special Education. My concept of freedom did not exist in STR terms until I arrived on this site. I think, if you attend to todays news, Freedom is not a well known concept, especially when people of grandeur, and excellent intellect, destroyed, and looted recently. Also, please feel free to fear all you wish. That is not of relevance to me as much as the fascinating ideas presented here.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Ah! cum on Will Groves. Jim can't be that bad is he. I think he is just tryin to do right. I think of him kinda like a hall monitor. You remember those. I think it is kinda nice theres someone willing to try an keep things straight.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Hey. Thanks Jim, but honestly I don't carry no offense, not after what I have gone though on this site.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Damned Mishochu yous is xactly rit. I isn't Ohfended. An yep, dat guy is purfectly o.k.s wit me. an yep. I doez lub my Glocks.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 3 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Ha!
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    *Yawn. Stretch. Crack*    WHAT.....you guys are still here?!?!   Well, at least you're constructively discussing the merits of my arti....   HUH?? What in the name of an unholy fuck is going on here?   BUH GAWD~!!!! The carnage! The madness!   That's it....you're all hereby sentenced to 30 days of Libertarians Anonymous. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Sorry, the STR software duplicated my post.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Nope. There are plenty of examples of that on this very page. Yours was one: you disrespected a fellow commenter by ignoring his name and calling him "this guy."  You then compounded it by refusing to apologize, and now by attempting to deflect attention from your rudeness.   If I were to call you an ill-mannered lout, I might be accurate but that would be ad-hominem; it would disparage your character, which may be pretty hard to fix. So I don't; I merely point out that on this occasion, you are writing like an ill-mannered lout.  You've shown no interest yet in fixing that, but you could.
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    I guess next you'll need to go look up the definition of ad hominem : )
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    A distinction with very little difference. A troll infiltrates a forum with a particular view, and sows discord. How? - by opposing that view.   Regardless of Glock27's tolerance, you did behave like an ill-mannered lout. That you now refuse to apologize doubles the repugnance of your conduct. 
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    You should go look up the definition of an online troll. It has no bearing on having "oppositional views" but is rather related to sowing discord. If Glock27 is male he is "this guy" (or that guy). I'd imagine he didn't take offense or he would've mentioned it. I also imagine he doesn't need you as his knight in shining armor (particularly if he's comfortable with glocks). You can ask for all the apologies you want. Boy you are amusing. With your charm wit and empathetic nature I can't imagine why you don't convert all commenters on the Guardian website.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    About that impressive term "AI trollbot", Will.  I enjoy haunting sites like that of The Guardian, which boasts that it is open to all viewpoints but is widely regarded as a Leftist stronghold, and have been unjustly accused there of being a troll (though not yet of being an automated one.)   So I had thought a "troll" was someone who invades a forum with a particular and advertised basis or viewpoint, to disrupt it by expressing the opposite. Would you agree with that?   If so it follows that an open site (like The Guardian's) cannot have any trolls on board. A closed one, on the other hand, may. One example would be someone who argues that paying income tax is a noble and patriotic duty, on a site such as the Simply Schiff Club, whose purpose is to expose the illegal nature of that alleged tax and share ways to avoid it.   Another example would be someone who invades Strike the Root, whose purpose is to advance liberty by striking at government as the root of evil, and argue that government is a necessary institution or that it cannot possibly be abolished.   If we agree on that definition of a "troll", then alas there are several here on STR; Paul Bonneau for example, who openly denied the very core of libertarian philosophy by denying that anyone has any rights; Alex Knight, who subsequently did likewise; Samarami, who cannot or will not define what "freedom" means or why one ethical principle is better than another, etc etc ad nauseam.   Now, several of these may just be confused, rather than deliberately disruptive; it's hard to judge. But one thing is certain; I am 100% in favor of the purpose of this web site, and therefore am the very opposite of a troll. Your apology would be welcome.      
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Just in case there is anyone remaining on Strike the Root's Comment section still interested in striking the root of evil rather than those attempting to strike the root of evil, I'll remind them that the concern about "old-school chain letter gimmicks" was expressed and answered a long time ago.   The STRticle is here.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Neither you, Will, nor the mises.org author Brittany Hunter mentioned in relation to this interesting subject how the effect of continuing automation will probably change after government has ceased to exist. In my Blog today I try to repair that omission.   It shows reason to expect that the least skilled in that society will, far from being idled, enjoy a large resurgence of opportunity for dignified and rewarding work.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    I was hoping, Mishochu, that someone else would point out your discourtesy to Glock27 when you referred to him just as "this guy" - but since nobody has, I will.   By doing that, you behaved like an ill-mannered lout.   The opinions he expressed were deplorable, and I responded by rebutting them; but I took care not to direspect him as a person. You took no such care. You should, therefore, offer him a public apology; ad-hominem attacks have no place in civilized discourse. His chosen name is "Glock27".
  • Will Groves's picture
    Will Groves 4 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    I stand by my assertion that "Jim Davies" is an AI-trollbot.  A real person who wanted to promote freedom in the world would recognize that perfection is the enemy of the good, and that this focus on purity (by its definition and no-one else's) among freedom-loving people is totally counterproductive.   Also, you gotta love the programmers who added the spambot code to "Jim Davies."  Has ANYBODY here been to that site in the last 2 years??  The one time I visited, the premise of the site stunk like an old-school chain letter gimmick.   In the real world, exponential growth of freedom isn't fostered when anyone who strays 0.000000001% from perfection is shot down.  A bot might not "know" that, and more importantly, it wouldn't "care."   I don't have enough data to figure out what triggers cause "Jim Davies" user-ban-request subprogram to go into action and start sending emails to Rob, but I congratulate Paul Bonneau and Alex Knight on their accomplishment.  In any case, kudos to everyone keeping the transistors in "Jim Davies" hot.  With a little luck, one of those puppies will fry soon.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Quite right, Mishochu, in your first line. He certainly does not, and nor does anyone else.   But he, like you and quite a few others who comment here, certainly needs to get his head together. The Academy will help, I hope; but it's built upon a huge resource of works by scholars far better qualified than I am.  A short sampling appears here.   Your second paragraph is nonsense.   Your third is false, as a very simple bit of homework would have shown you. An internal sense of liberty is marvelous, but cannot be compared to the practical liberty of a society rid of government. The goal of achieving one is readily achievable once the brain is in gear, as above.
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 4 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    This guy certainly doesn't need Jim Davies' permission to define freedom for himself. It appears that Jim Davies is so concerned with everyone getting on his "freedom academy" and adhering to its syllabus that he defines freedom for himself as when enough other people (external to himself) accept its tenets then he will be free. This goal is tantamount to dying an enslaved (or not fully free) individual. He refuses to accept the premise that other people will to be free (mentally/internally, where it counts according to some) without waiting for the rest of society (a sadly unlikely goal). Perhaps these people really are free, particularly, free to ignore Jim Davies.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    So you need Sam's permission before you can define what you mean by "freedom"? If so, the poison has penetrated deeper than I thought.   From your bio, Glock27, I see that life has treated you roughly. You have a painful back condition, and you suffered the agony of trying to teach kids in a government school who wanted not to be taught.   I'm sorry about the former and wish I could help, but about the latter, why did you continue? You were delivering good value, I'm sure; more value than you received in pay. Therefore, you were making government a net gift. Why? Does your concept of "freedom" extend to the freedom to assist the foremost enemy of freedom? Or does it define the word (as many do) to include government as a promoter or guardian of freedom? Is your definition, perhaps, infinitely elastic?   Perhaps you belong, like Sam apparently does, to the Charles Lutwidge Dodgson school of language, in which words mean whatever the user says they mean. But he was an Oxford man, and through his Humpty Dumpty character he was, of course, kidding. I fear that you two are not.          
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    You must be referring to Emory University in Georgia.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Alas, you've got me there. What is a "blue poop trail of reference"? Can't recall ever seeing blue poop.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Sorry. Double posted.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Ah geez Sam. I have always been under the impression that AA did not particularly subscribe to a religious perspective, but more of a spiritual aspect, my ignorance there I guess. as I have, to this very day have believed that one (a person) could invoke Budda, the Tao, or the democrat party if they wished. I think they just accepted the idea of a higher power than ourselves without a descriptor, ah poop. I am not an alcoholic, so I really don't know and I guess I have never given it a second thought or I would have researched it. Give me a boost and tell me. Forever indebt to your wisdom.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Thanks ever so much for that bit of editorial advice. Life saver-in effect-for me. I have never been able to figure out how to drop all those little blue poop trails of reference, I guess it's because I am somewhat lazy, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would share that piece of information. It would be wildly helpful. Thanks.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Hi Alex (do I have one of your books?), I perfectly understand what you are saying. Sometimes common language is just that, common, and well understood by hundreds of thousands of people. I am familiar with Oxford College, an institution of higher learning. Hope all is well with you and your wagon is on smooth grounds for miles and miles and miles.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 4 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Sam...I have always liked you the day I stumbled into this world. Your remark here is beautifully laid out, simple, straight as an arrow flying into the wind. Remarks I have always trusted and felt safe with because of the honesty which exudes from each carefully chosen word. Your words represent safety, and gives the sense of the freedom to be with you. Ten years my senior and you teach me so much. Thank you for being here, thank you for your time honored wisdom, thank you for being a giant among the, uh, hm-m-m, well thank you Sam. I deeply appreciate what you have to say and giving me the freedom to define freedom for myself.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 6 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Let the record show that you did not answer the questions. You don't have to do so, of course; but the omission is very significant.   It means that you, who write here on a freedom site so profusely and so often, decline to tell readers what definition you attach to the word "freedom."   It means that you decline to explain why a subjective belief in tolerance ("live and let live") is in any sense better or superior to a belief in rule ("live and control").   Hence it means that you've provided no basis for distinguishing between good and evil, or even for defining the term "evil." And yet (as you note) you are still "here", on a site at whose mast head is the phrase "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to one who is striking at the root."   You're a nice guy, Sam. Your response to Kevin Patten's article, with which you obviously disagreed passionately, was a model of courtesy and restraint. But you are not up to the job of striking at the root of evil, for you cannot coherently identify (or at least, have not identified) the target. You're out of your depth, as I suggested recently in another thread. That is not BTW a criticism; all of us come eventually to the limit of our intellectual abilities, and I clearly recall how and when I met my own.   What's important is that we don't then pretend we haven't.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 10 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    "...beliefs and principles are purely relative and subjective..." We're both here, are we not? And most of us are here to discuss and share and sum up succinctly as practical, "beliefs and principles". Some are more succinct than others. Most of us are here, Jim, to discuss and share beliefs and principles without attempt to impose "libertarian orthodoxy" upon other participants at STR. Not to bicker with each other over "relativism" or other "ism's". A few months back there arose quite a vivid exchange regarding "circumcision". It ended well. It motivated me to research further. I found myself moving a ways to the left -- or the right -- wherever a less opinionated stance leans. You've become "hard shell" with age. As I see it, with you it has become "...my way or the highway..." -- literally. If I don't totally agree with your concept, for instance, of "freedom", you feel it incumbent upon yourself to petition the administrator of this forum site to "ban" or somehow eject me from participation here. Then you appear resentful if he doesn't rise to the bait. I believe, for instance, that I can be free. Here. Today. At this very moment. I'm 82. Don't have a lot of time to fool around about it. "If it don't happen now, it ain't a-gonna". You appear to believe that there must be a large amount of "orthodoxy" to assimilate by me (or anybody else) before any of us can become truly free. With you providing the orthodoxy. I believe you have the "right" (I prefer "choice") to hold and expound that, just as I have the "right" to challenge you on it; but the consequence of squabbling is the attrition of major participants. So I'd better quit here, while we still have a few on board. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 weeks 17 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    So, beliefs and principles are purely relative and subjective. What seems to you "the only path to freedom"  might be quite different to someone else. Do I read you correctly?   If so, would the same be true about ethics, for example, since they derive from beliefs? To you, live-and-let-live is your chosen, guiding principle and therefore murder is, to you, immoral. But to someone else, live-and-control is the preferred principle, and to him, should someone decline to be controlled, it would be entirely ethical to kill him. All is relative and subjective, yes?   By the way, in your wholly relativistic universe, what definitive meaning, if any, do you attach to the word "freedom", as you used it in the quoted phrase? - or is that, too, open to an infinitude of defintions?    
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    To me, anybody I suspect to be promoting a "libertarian orthodoxy" appears to be simply acting out her latent desire to be in charge. It is my prerogative ("right" if you please) to so believe. I sometimes wish I were wrong (cognitive dissonance with respect to you, since I've known and admired much of your writing and conversations for years). Perhaps I am. That, too, is my prerogative. Being wrong, that is. Because I believe the libertarian philosophy allows one to believe what she has come to believe without need to subscribe to a list of libertarian "rules". Obviously, when one subscribes to the libertarian way of life, s/he will not continue to aggress, insult, or defraud. That rather comes with the package. But liberty is liberty. S/he need not check her brain or her personality or her philosophy in at the door. "Live-and-let-live" appears to be the only viable path to freedom -- for me. It might not be so for you. That is your prerogative, as long as you understand that folks like I might see folks like you as innate managers and controllers. But please remember this, Jim my dear friend: the world revolves around MY belly-button, not yours. My world. Your world revolves around YOUR belly-button, whether you admit it or not. The advantage this philosophy offers me -- right up to and alongside "live-and-let-live" -- is lots of freedom. It is not necessary for me to expend emotional angst worrying about what you think of me or how you might phrase some imagined insult toward me. You're much more concerned about your affairs than you are about mine. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    What the late Bill Wilson did in regard to LSD is his responsibility, not mine. My AA program does not depend upon Bill W or anything he might have said or done. Naysayers will have him convicted of adultery, drinking in secret, drugging -- all kinds of other "evils". Such is the reward of gaining a high level of celebrity in any endeavor. Again, not to affect my AA program -- truth or lies. I'm not his judge, your judge, or anybody else's judge.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    So Sam, in your opinion "libertarian orthodoxy" is an oxymoron. Really?   You also wrote 'I learned "live-and-let-live" is the only path to freedom.' That phrase is not at all a bad summary of libertarian orthodoxy, and you say that it's exclusively so.   Which is it, then? - an oxymoron, or the only path to freedom?  
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Well done. "Internationally prestigious Oxford University" will soothe the most ruffled Oxononian feathers.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    '...Until 95 percent of AA congregations say "LOOK...we don't want you here...we're not signing courtcards anymore," I will continue to view AA as an involuntary organization...' Kevin, I believe you've detected the pulse of and identified an underlying diagnosis as to why the "libertarian-movement" has experienced difficulty getting off the ground and going anywhere. I'll attempt to explain by using the AA example that you've so colorfully explored in your essay and pinpointed by your personal experience. AA exemplifies the one truly libertarian exercise that I'm aware of. There could be others of which I'm unaware. Individualist thinking in a collectivist world is virtually unheard of -- unthinkable. You can witness bickering and squabbling and "divorce proceedings" among participants right here on this supposedly "libertarian" forum over trivial detritus like definitions for and existence of "law" and/or "rights", etc. The term "libertarian orthodoxy" was mentioned -- an oxymoron of oxymoron's in my book. AA fits the libertarian model. Lots of quarreling and arguing over nothing definitive. And religion. Religion formed the backbone of AA, or so it seemed at the time. But "they" (treatment centers, rehabs, organized religions) have nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with "them". One would think that libertarianism, by the nature of the definition, would absolve all squabbling and dialectic polemics. Not so. Bill W was quoted as defining early AA as one gigantic squabble. Long before forums such as STR and the internet I stood in AA Intergroup meetings and chairman's workshops belaboring your above quoted argument. I would pound tables and insist that "we" should abstain from signing court attendance papers. That would elicit some-are-sicker'n-other looks so common in AA -- particularly after the influx of intellectual "treatment center" graduate types. Some would always counter that chairmen should hold court papers until the end of the meeting before signing, to insure that the parolee "would-get-the-whole-treatment". It took years of cyber-fellowship here and other anarchist forums to turn my authoritarianistic mentality around. I eventually stumbled upon an unknown libertarian/anarchist writer, the late Delmar England, who wrote one un-acclaimed essay, then up and died. "Mind and Matters" was published posthumously. At times it is AA slogans that present solutions. I learned "live-and-let-live" is the only path to freedom. For me. Along with "one-day-at-a-time". My sponser of soon-to-be 40 years once took me aside at an AA clubhouse (after bailing me out of "treatment" for the n-teenth time) and said, "Sam, all those slogans over there on the wall are important. But there is one you should ignore. It does NOT apply to you: "Think, Think, Think". Because, for you, that one always seems to translate into "Drink, Drink, Drink". So, with this I'll quit thinking and leave y'all alone. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Said shareholders, and those they employ, get to vote. There's the problem.   Seguay to the F-35 fighter-bomber. The current issue of Forbes reports that shareholders in Lockheed may do okay, despite a Trump tweet that its cost over-runs were obscene. The article said this military toy costs $100 million a pop, and that 3,000 are to be built.   What the hell for? - seems a fair question. But the 14,000 people working at the Lockheed plant will not be asking it. Instead, they will vote themselves continued employment. Such is government. There is no rational alternative to a free market.  
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    (re-posted as a reply)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Try hitting "Enter" twice, to make a para break. Doing it once merely starts a new line.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Mil-Indust complex shareholders profited quite hansomely during President Peace Prize's reign. If you made drones, parts, programs, missles, bombs (smart & stupid) & etc you likely did real well sales-wise.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Trudeau is an Obama clone with lighter skin & less racial animus. See how Canada looks in eight years.
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    In fact Alex, your articles prompted mine. This essay was finished MONTHS ago. But I had to take out all references to yours, and then BEG (like one does with all publishers) to have it put up.  So...since you agree that nobody should be forced into AA -- but that AA meetings by and large have no problem with people being forced to enjoy their company -- we don't disagree on much.  Thanks for weighing in.  Cheers. 
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    How the hell do you break up paragraphs on here?? I still can't figure that out. What's the secret?
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Sam, I really do appreciate you opening your AA meetings with that line. In my experience, that's very, very rare. I've tried to have people just sign my court cards beforehand, and while that can happen pretty often with the guys smoking outside, never have I heard a meeting faciliator act so libertarian. Until 95 percent of AA congregations say "LOOK...we don't want you here...we're not signing courtcards anymore," I will continue to view AA as an involuntary organization. I theorize it's because they want more people who are quick to throw a buck around. Also, as I say in the article, plenty of state-sanctioned health programs include AA....maybe somebody is worried about losing their subsidies. We dont know because their HQ remains so damn quiet.  "Dissing religion is stupidity personified"........I agree. I was just heeding the word of God, and therefore slaughtered a ram in His honor, afterwards sprinkling its blood in the right corner of the temple, just before scolding someone for eating shellfish and then watching homosexuals getting stoned to death. I kid, I kid. Religion is totally rational. 
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Thank you much Jim. I might get around to correcting that. Hope you enjoyed my rant. 
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    The meme is no doubt an inarticulate smear. But I wonder what our resident AA proponents think about introducing LSD into the regimen. The point is, far too few people know about that little factoid (as insignificant as it was in my arguments), and we should have a fuller understanding about AA and it's creators.