Archive for the ‘pegleghippie’ Category

What I wrote for POMO
October 9, 2008

by pegleghippie. 

I know it seems i don’t write anymore, but its just that I’ve been writing a shitload for school.  Wednesday I wrote three papers.  Yeah.  Three.  and they kicked ass.  I write a small novel’s worth of material on a weekly basis.

Anyway, since I don’t have much time to blog, I thought I’d post my class notes from one of my philosophy classes.  Take it as you will.

So in this class we talked mostly about Bataille, who is pretty much a mascot for us at this point. 

We started out with how the crush freaks are performing animal sacrifice, and how this was just a modern version of what ancient cultures did.  We also talked about how Bataille described sado-machochism is modern human sacrifice, while more generally, deviant sexuality is filling a general religious role.  This lead to Cs’ weird thought:
“Reproduction of [the crush freaks video] is like printing the bible.  The bug is the Christ figure”
I think C may be onto something here.  While sure, it is pretty much pornos being produced, the only reason there is a market for these videos is because people are feeling that sort of transcendent connection to these bugs, they’re identifying with them. 
This led us to discussing the sacrificial nature of the religious experience, with R saying,
“religion is the destruction of the individual” 
What he meant was that the individual gets lost in the group and the experience.  Animal sacrifice serves as a nice metaphor for this since it involved something very valuable being given up.  We talked about the meaning of the word “sacrifice,” and how it denoted loss automatically.  To emphasize the sense of identity, and not just property, that was lost, Dr. T said, 
“the property has to be so valuable that losing it is a loss of at least some self.”
This reminds me of the story of Cain and Able in the old testament, where Cain’s sacrifice is deemed unworthy by Jahweh because it was second rate property.
3One day, Cain gave part of his harvest to the LORD, 4and Abel also gave an offering to the LORD. He killed the first-born lamb from one of his sheep and gave the LORD the best parts of it. The LORD was pleased with Abel and his offering,5but not with Cain and his offering. This made Cain so angry that he could not hide his feelings.  6The LORD said to Cain:


   What’s wrong with you? Why do you have such an angry look on your face? 7If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling. [c] But you did the wrong thing, and now sin is waiting to attack you like a lion. 

(Genesis 4:3-4.7, Contemporary English version,;&version=46;)
Dr. T mentioned a similar story from Hinduism: it seems that the idea of sacrifice being a valuable personal loss is prevalent across religions.  This supports Bataille’s idea that sacrifice is an attempt to escape oneself and to connect to something more continuous.
We also talked about a paradox with regards to objectification:  Being objectified violates our sense of self, and makes us feel less-than-subjective.  At the same time, our own subjectiveness only emerges when we have an objective sense to define it against.  An “I” and a “not I.”  This is the uncomfortable part of consciousness, which led us to desire.
Desire arises when our undifferentiated consciousness (which does not suffer the objective paradox) experiences the addition of objectivity.  Slipping in and out of this “auto-hypnosis,” this “Bhudda mind,” we go about our lives.  Dr. T said there were a few different ways to do this:
 “War is a form of sacrifice.  So is capitalism, which is basically consumerism.  Consuming is a form of sacrifice.”
The mention of economics led us to discuss Bataille’s concepts of economy.  K already posted on this, but basically he defined a general economy, with infinite consumption, contrasted with a restricted economy where the consumers are aware of limits.  He was more interested in how different cultures made use of their excess resources than with how they dealt with scarce resources.  
This led to mentioning the idea of pot latch, where native americans would either give something away or destroy it.  We talked about how eating something was destroying it, and how a pot luck in modern times did pretty much the same thing.  
T then asked:
“isn’t all this desire talk a new foundation?” [remember, pomo is anti-foundationalist]
to which Dr. T responded,
“Bataille is like walking into a junkyard.  We are playing with these ideas, don’t be so serious.”
I’ve actually been thinking that the philosophy we’ve been looking at has a non-serious attitude to it.  A lack of seriousness doesn’t mean we don’t work hard, that we don’t accomplish what we set out to do, or that we dismiss other people.  
But nothing has to get us so worked up that we start defining ourselves by it permanently.  It also means we don’t have much room for regret in our lives.  Whatever we do, whatever we philosophize about, it is neither significant nor insignificant.  It’s just something we do, or something we did, that is if we remember it at all.  So when we are aware, we shouldn’t fear enjoying ourselves,  or jumping headfirst into whatever comes our way, cause, in the end, what are we worried about?
What about this idea of a non-serious approach to philosophy?  Can an attitude undermine our field, or does it make philosophy less boring, more engaging?  Are there any consequences to light-heartedness that we should take seriously, and if so, why?

So this is SGA Office Hours
September 30, 2008

by pegleghippie

So I’m in the SGA office, and I’m alone.  Oh one other person is running in and out, setting up a big event for the day, but he’s too busy for it to count.  Do I want to do productive student government work?  What would I do?  I don’t have any concrete ideas that I could get rolling in time for next week’s meeting, not without some help anyway.  I should’ve brought the book for my 2:30 class.

A lot of people just get on facebook when they do their office hours, but I’m not in the mood.  I should back up.  I’m in the student government at my school, and we have mandatory office hours, ostensibly so things get done around here.  It doesn’t always work out.  Speaking of which, I’ve been showing up from 10-11 every Tuesday since I signed up for that time, why am I on the schedule for 3:30-4:30 on Mondays?  Come to think of it, the schedule has had me listed as a different time every week.  Maybe instead of blaming our Chief of Staff for slinging me around, I should de-confuse her.  That would be the mature thing to do anyway.

Oh, also fun note!  The President of SGA sometimes reads this blog, so if you’re reading this, Hey Mr. President!  Don’t worry, I’ll protect your anonymity and mine.  And everyone else, don’t worry, he’s cool; he won’t get on me for blogging in the office.  Hey at least I’m not on “teh facebook.”

Don’t get the wrong impression though, SGA is pretty productive, and increasingly so.  We’ve been doing voter registration, reforming campus security, improving the food, and just yesterday, we decided to help a student raise money for leukemia research and give an official voice to students hearing appeals on parking violations (damn those zealotry ticketers).

Why can’t I write 300+ words in 15 minutes when it’s important?  Anyway, sorry if you read through my office-stream-of-consciousness there expecting something meaningful.  I’ll be back later.

maybe it’s because i was playing a presidential drinking game…
September 26, 2008

by pegleghippie

but it sure seemed to me that obama wiped the floor with Mccain.  Obama was thoughtful, reasonable, all encompassing in his view, and offered practical solutions.  Mccain talked out his ass trying to get Obama into a “gotchya” moment.  Fuck that guy.

I am a total geek for political compass
September 23, 2008

by pegleghippie

(You may notice that a large portion of this article is in parenthesis. I’m kind of proud of this, offering so much comment and clarification on my own writing that the parenthesis parts are almost a whole new writing unto themselves.  Yay deconstruction of writing structure!)

In case you’ve never been to I highly recommend it. It has a very well thought out political quiz that uses the dual axis model of politics (which the site creators claim they invented) instead of the single axis left-right model.  Ever since Mekhami introduced me to the site years ago, I’ve taken the test dozens of times, using their model to track my own political shifts.

When I go to the site now, though, it’s usually to see where the site creators place various electoral candidates or parties on their graphs (candidates in the US, parties in parliamentary democracies.  The creators are British, as a point of reference).  They had an awesome chart up during the primaries covering all of the major, and some of the minor, contenders.  Since the solidization of party nominees, they’ve put up a new chart, with Republican, Democratic, Constitutional, Libertarian, Green, and socialist candidates.  In addition to that, they have included the VP picks for the two main parties, as well as Mr. Nader.  I imagine the reasoning is that as a notable independent, he deserves his own mention.  Here’s the chart:

If you want to read the reasoning behind the chart, or to compare candidates to where they were in the primaries, you can see the original here, but I’m not going to elaborate why I think this is more or less accurate.  I do want to write a little about what this chart shows us though.  Here’s the 2004 chart, for comparison:

                      (It’s not nearly as pretty, the site was still pretty new at the time)

The second chart is harder to read, because it doesn’t have the overlaid grid to let one be exact, and I imagine no one likes the monochrome color scheme, but I’ll do my best.  I bring up the 2004 chart, firstly, to deal with the American right:  I’d like to point out that the republicans are running a very  authoritarian campaign this time around, even while their economic position appears about the same, maybe slightly left (Feel free to disagree; it’s a stupid ambiguous chart).  Bush appears to be around (7.5, 4?), while Mccain is now (7, 6) and Palin is (6, 8).  I’m focusing on that second digit (the authoritarian one), for the next couple of paragraphs.

 While I won’t say that Mccain is more fascist than George Bush, Bush’s social positions in ’04 were comparatively moderate compared to the current ticket (that should scare you, let me attempt show you why).  For comparison, look at the republicans and their respective Constitution-party opponents.   CP 2004 nominee Michael Peroutka (lets say 8.5, 8.5?) was noticeably more socially conservative (on the up-down scale) than George Bush, while only negligibly more economically right. In the 2008 chart, Mccain is only about a point away on both scales from Baldwin (8, 7) while Palin is actually more authoritarian than baldwin, up at the 8 mark!

 Here’s why this is significant:  The constitution party formed out of the idea that the republicans weren’t “pure conservatives,” especially regarding social issues (you know, cause the repubs never actually get around to banning abortion and other pet issues).  But this time, the GOP is comparable to the constitution party, which was formerly viewed as the fringe of the American right.  Sure Baldwin is slightly more moderate than Peroutka, i beleive that is insignificant.  As ideologically motivated as they are, I don’t think that the constitution party isn’t going to move towards the center in any meaningful way anytime soon.  Just to repeat the point: the GOP is running a very, very authoritarian platform this year.

And I have to mention, even the Libertarians are experiencing the same upward-and-slightly-leftward shift.  The political compass guys explain this point well, but basically Bob Barr (8, 4) is noticeably more authoritarian than the 2004 nominee, Mike Badnarik (9, -2 or some such?). Bob Barr gets credit though, for fighting to make the patriot act less harsh back when he was a republican in congress, and for his dramatic change on cannabis legalization (seriously, look him up.  He went from calling it witchcraft to saying that it’s awesomeness incarnate.  I think he got experienced, if you know what I mean).

Sorry for spewing so much about the far right, now to the (understandably but frustratingly) centrist democrats!  I’m actually a little pleased with this part of the chart, because while the republicans have gone for broke on the authority scale, the Obama/Biden ticket is a little to the left of the Kerry campaign.  Kerry was what, about (3.5, 2)?  Obama is a little left of that (2, 3), and Biden is (2, 2).  Economically, these guys are pretty close to the populist Edwards, who I always figured was about as left as a mainstream democrat could get away with.  Keep in mind that I liked Kerry, I thought he came across as recognizing how far right America was while still wanting to help the underdog as much as possible, so I’m very happy with Obama’s position here.  Maybe its the current financial crisis, but whatever the reason, if Obama thinks he can go farther than Kerry, more power to him (And Obama has a really good shot at winning, i think a better chance than Kerry had).

You may have noticed that Obama is about a point more authoritarian than Kerry:  This is probably because of Obama’s reversal on cannabis legalization and dilation and extraction procedure (affectionately termed “partial bith abortion” by the right wing word game).  Like the slight move for the constitution party, I don’t think it’s significant.  It is not the same trend as the republicans authoritarian turn, particularly since its only a point or so, and Biden is still at 2.  

Now to the (incredibly neglected) American Left: My own precious greens Have remained pretty consistent.  Instead of guessing at numbers, we’ll use Mr. Nader as an anchor (since his politics haven’t changed in 30 years and he’s on both charts).  Both Cobb and McKinney are slightly up and right of him.  I don’t care enough to find out  where Nader and the Greens slightly disagree on the issues.  Policy-wise, at least, I have long found both to be very tolerant, compassionate, and of course, environmentally conscious, with plans that seems practical and workable in America, but of course remain untested.  McKinney is at about (-4, -3) there.  That’s really encouraging, given that she’s a former Democrat (In case you don’t know, she was a representative from Georgia for 12 years).  

Disclaimer: much as I like McKinney on the issues, as a person, as a politician, and just overall as a nomination pick, this year is going to be close, and I don’t believe the Greens accomplish anything going for this top down approach (local elections first!  Build a movement from the ground up.  It may take fifty years, but I don’t see any other way). I live in a potential swing state (Virginia), meaning my vote may actually mean something.  And as I said earlier, Obama has given me a slight bit of respect for the dems this year, so I’ll be voting democrat in the presidential run.  Should the opportunity for green party building in terms of state or local elections arise, however, expect me to be the first one doing the grunt work.

That leaves Brian Moore (-8, -3), the Socialist Party USA candidate.  Like the others libertarian-left quadrant, the socialists have been consistent since the last election (2004 Brown looks like he was also about (-8, -3)). I just don’t see such an extreme economic policy working smoothly in America, but Moore is a very grounded guy, and he’d probably say the same thing.  Personally I like Moore, in interviews he’s said he knows he won’t be elected and he’s symbolic. When he entertains the hypothetical “what if you were elected,” he seems to have a decent plan for transforming America, and for working with a predominantly capitalist congress.  He sticks by his ideology though, definitely not a sellout.  Like I said, I like him, and I wish he was in a different position to make a real difference in the world.

By the way, diversity is all over the place this year, and not just with Black Obama and female Palin.  Cynthia McKinney is a black woman (once again, you should’ve known this, she was in congress) and the socialist VP Stewart Alexander is black.  Nader has arabic heritage doesn’t he?  The libertarian ticket remains all white male, and the constitution party rides a fine line between probably racist & sexist and openly racist & sexist, so naturally, they’re the other white male ticket. 

I might update this later; I really love political compass and have more to say, but I have shit to do now.

Three exciting things at once!
September 20, 2008

by pegleghippie

Ok so thursday night I saw David Byrne (of talking heads fame) perform at my school.  I would say best concert ever, but that doesn’t do it justice.  It was an art performance, with dancing and lights and surprises and themes and narratives!  The man is a genius, and a talented one at that.  His fellow performers were just as top notch, especially the dual percussionists.  Really, if you get the chance to see David Byrne, do it.  No excuses, find a way.  And if you have the foresight to swallow a tablespoon of nutmeg 7 hours beforehand, all the better.  That did make it a little awkward when I ran into my french professor though.

Then friday I saw Children of Men.  This is a great, atmospheric, intelligent movie about the way partisan differences can fuck things up, as told through science fiction (no really).  You see, every woman is sterile in this future, and has been for nearly 19 years.  Then this apathetic guy (Clive Owen) discovers this pregnant illegal immigrant, which is basically now the most important person alive.  He hides her from the fascist government, only to get screwed by the ideologically-blinded rebels, and races to escape to a benevolent third-party NGO.  It sounds dumb, I know, but it’s really really amazing, and it’ll make you like organizations like the red cross more.  Oh and Michael Cane grows weed in it.

Then this morning Madeline Albright came to speak at our school.  Yeah, I know!  Madeline fuckin’ Albright!  Suffice it to say, she’s smarter than all of us, and takes a view towards foreign policy that combines acknowledging real problems while seeking humanistic solutions.  I can’t really say more about her than that.

And those were three sweet things.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to a comedian tonight.  If he’s any good, you’ll hear about it.

UPDATE (10:41 PM):  Dan Cummins is a very talented, very subversive comedian.  As far as today goes, he’s right up there with Albright, but for very different reasons.

Check this shit out
September 11, 2008

Apple Juice, Max ZT


I love TV on the Radio
September 9, 2008

by pegleghippie.

Today was a long day.  I got up at 8:30, and I’m just now sitting down at my computer, 15 hours later.  In the spirit of blogging something, I’m going to partly reproduce here an essay I wrote for my Peace and Conflict class.  This is an analysis of the TV on the Radio song Dry Drunk Emperor.  They’re one of my favorites, the song kicks ass, and my analysis ain’t half bad.  enjoy!

(I couldn’t find the video on youtube, but the band released the song free over the internet. You can find it here.  Personally i put it on repeat while I was writing this thing so the repetition would motivate me to finish.  I don’t recommend that, but hey, the song is free, might as well listen once while you read.)

I’ve chosen the 2005 song Dry, Drunk Emperor by TV on the Radio (TVotR) as a song that expresses the desire for peace. The song does this by showing a disdain for the American political system; portraying it, and president Bush specifically, as a roadblock to a utopian peace. In addition to a direct challenge to the government, the song is highly critical of how that government exploits people with both religion and war.

            With regards to how the song portrays peace, TV on the Radio takes a relatively complex set of three outlooks towards peace and aggression within the range of the song, and the tone of the lyrics shifts according to which outlook is being expressed at a given point. 

First view:  Compassionate outlook, ill-defined peace

baby boy/dieing under hot desert sun/watch your colours run.

 did you believe the lie they told you/that Christ would lead the way/and in a matter of days/hand us victory?

 did you buy the bull they sold you/that the bullets and the bombs/and all the strong arms/would bring home security?

 The song opens with “baby boy/dieing under hot desert sun/watch your colours run.  Here the lyrics are compassionate and empathetic towards the soldier.  The soldier is characterized as childlike, almost as a family member (“baby boy”), and as a victim of war, abandoned by his nation. 

The next two lines accuse a “they,” the unnamed United States government that used religion and the promise of an easy victory to lead the nation into war.  More importantly however, the lines are addressed at “you,” in this case the soldier who was tricked into war.  Since the war was a matter of deceit, the song implies that peace would be possible if only people were as informed as the lyricist; although what kind of peace isn’t specified.  Certainly it involves peace as the absence of war, but the family-like tone taken here could possibly suggest some form of mutual support.

 Second view: Sarcastic/angry outlook, call for legitimate aggression

all eyes upon/dry drunk emperor/gold cross jock skull and bones/mocking smile/he’s been/standing naked for a while!/get him gone, get him gone, get him gone!!/and bring all the thieves to trial.

 end their false promise/end their dream/watch it turn to steam/rising to the nose of some cross legged god/gog of magog/end times sort of thing./oh unmentionable disgrace/shield the children’s faces/as all the moneyed apes/display unimaginably poor taste/in a scramble for mastery.

 atta’ boy get em with your gun/till Mr. mega ton/tells us when we’ve won/or/what we’re gonna leave undone.

 This is the first appearance of the chorus, and the song’s title (“all eyes upon/dry drunk emperor”). As to the title, Dry Drunk Emperor sarcastically refers to president Bush, and the disconnect between his insular reaction to hurricane Katrina, and the horror and devastation of that storm.  Bush was “dry” while people drowned in New Orleans.  The word “Drunk” is used in two ways: first to negatively associate the president with his ‘frat-boy’ past, and secondly to imply that he is drunk on power to the point that he is indifferent to American citizens.  Calling him an “emperor” is to further this idea of indifference, as the song’s chorus alludes to the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” (“he’s been/standing naked for a while!”). The government response to hurricane Katrina is not explicitly mentioned.  Rather, the phrase serves to tie Bush to an uncaring government, and to make him the face of a system (“all the thieves”) that thrives off of such an attitude.

            The line “gold cross jock skull and bones” deserves special mention, because it attempts to define bush with one verb-free phrase.  “Gold,” meaning rich, “cross” referring to religion, “skull and bones,” referring to the secretive fraternity that Bush belonged to when he was at Yale.

            The next segment is more angry than sarcastic.  Someone (presumably the rich elite, based on what follows) is accused of furthering the “dream” of Satan (“gog of magog”) for an “end times sort of thing,” in other words, ruination of the world.  This dream is what must be “ended” in the song.  Then things get a little more specific, as “children’s faces” must be protected from the “unimaginably poor taste” of the “moneyed apes.”  The rich are thus accused as the someone trying to deliver on Satan’s “false promise.” 

            The final segment of this middle section of the song returns to sarcasm with phrases like  “atta’ boy get em with your gun.”  If it is not clear that the lyricist is not actually enthusiastic about warfare, he adds, “tell us…what we’re gonna leave undone.”            In other words, the question is what will be left after we’ve exhausted our war-lust?

            This is the most complex section of the song, and where aggression is first explored.  Both the repeated line, “get him gone!” and the lines “end their false promise/end their dream/watch it turn to steam,” express a desire for action on the parts of society at large, presumably.  I think this is calling for legitimate, democratic action for two reasons: first “get [bush] gone!” could be accomplished either with impeachment or with the election of democrats, as could “end [the Bush-supporting wealthy’s] dream.”  The second reason is the line “bring all the thieves to trial,” as opposed to killing or mobbing the thieves.

Third view: revolutionary outlook, call for direct aggression and utopian peace

what if all the fathers and the sons/went marching with their guns/drawn on Washington./that would seal the deal/show if it was real/this supposed freedom.

 what if all the bleeding hearts/took it on themselves/to make a brand new start./organs pumpin on their sleeves,/paint murals on the white house/feed the leaders L.S.D/grab your fife and drum/grab your gold baton/and let’s meet on the lawn/shut down this hypocrisy.

           This final section is where aggression and peace are placed in a relationship, the call for aggression turns from legitimate to violent, and peace is defined in a utopian, counterculture fashion. 

            The first “what if” deals with aggression—it supposes that the men of the nation (“fathers and the sons”) could embody American freedom by violently (“marching with their guns”) overthrowing the American government.  The second “what if” deals with the peace following a revolution—placing responsibility on society’s compassionate (“all the bleeding hearts,”) to use art (“paint murals on the white house”) and psychedelic drugs (“feed the leaders L.S.D”) to radically transform the destructive mindset of Washington into one focused on creativity. 

            The two concepts meet with the final lines; “grab your fife and drum/grab your gold baton/and let’s meet on the lawn/shut down this hypocrisy.”  A fife and drum leads people to war, a gold baton leads a marching band.  When the two meet, they’re capable of changing America into something more sincere, and less hypocritical.

 I’m leaving off the part that discusses my personal views on the song, peace, war, and the peace movement at large.  I figure this post can be about the song exclusively.

meeting of the titans
September 3, 2008

by pegleghippie

So I’m going to see Mekhami tomorrow.  Actually I may not see him till friday (my birthday!) but regardless, this weekend will involve the relative physical proximity of two friends who’s relationship is largely digital.

We’re gonna eat some food, hang out in Mekhami’s apartment, see the sites, and…you know i really don’t know what else.  We didn’t like plan anything, but thats probably better (no plans no disappointments right?)

But yeah, on to awesomeness.  And I avoid the hurricane that is headed towards my home.  So life may just be fucking hell when i come back monday, but i’m not thinking that far ahead yet.

Yay travelling!

Revolution and gun nuts
September 1, 2008

by pegleghippie

So yesterday I heard my all-time favorite argument for protecting the rights of gun owners: we must keep our guns just in case the government gets out of control, so that we can take the power back in the name of freedom.

Um, gun owners, what are you waiting for?  Let us remind ourselves of the bush legacy real quick:

torture:Guantanamo, Abu ghraib, water boarding.
judicial oversight is a joke: Monica Goodling’s justice appointments, fired attorneys, no guarantee to habeas corpus, secret prisons in Europe, extraordinary rendition.
Cronyism: No bid contracts, waging war in corporate (esp. halliburton’s) interests, Plame Scandal, the politicization of both the military and the concept of patriotism (this goes with religion too, as aggressive evangelizing towards military members has been given the go ahead by the pentagon).
Incompetence: No exit strategy, military resources stretched to the breaking point, the world hates us, KATRINA, the doubling of the national debt.
Lying/fucking with science: Abstinence-only education, “intelligent design,” a total and complete lack of action on global warming, Reasons given for invading Iraq.
First amendment erosion:
Religion: favoritism given to one, separation of church and state increasingly ignored.
speech: curtailed, not guaranteed in engagements with public officials, recent raids on protesters homes during conventions.
the press: no longer independent (to be fair, this started before Bush 43, it’s just very pronounced now), reporters denied access unless they have a cozy administration relationship (fox news), corporate bias consistently favors WASP crowd
assembly/redress of grievances: the already-mentioned raids on possible protesters homes in St. Paul, free-speech zones (even in public places), heavy police crackdown on protests, arresting protesters who dare to actually show up during congress’ business hours.

Whew.  had enough? If not, People for the American Way used to have a list of Bush’s grievances, but they seem to have taken it down.  They’re still a fantastic resource for examining the current administration.

But I digress.  The point is that I’m not sure what standard of control that gun owners are talking about when they say they don’t want the government to get out of control.  If they were being honest, they should’ve started shooting a long time ago, maybe around the time that the Military commissions act (aka bye bye habeas corpus) was passed.  If they want to wait until there’s a tank in their street and soldiers positioned on their corners, it will be too late.

 If there was any movement for armed revolution today, it would certainly have my support, and if such a movement had a chance in hell, I’d consider joining it.  Somehow I get the feeling that my gun-touting friend is only rhetorically committed to such a revolution, and never actually sees himself resisting the police.

I did ask him “what would it take?” and he said, “when they come for our guns!”  If you don’t see the circle here, I’ll point it out to you.  We need guns to protect our freedom to have guns.  That makes guns an end unto themselves, not the guardians of liberty.

 I imagine this is closer to the truth of the average gun nut’s mindset anyway: the revolution line is just a cover for their true desire to have their mechanical projectile machines that they hold so dear.  Otherwise the above list of government failure would actually register with these people.  No, instead it’s just a fetish of sorts, an irrational love for one silly tool in particular, not a righteous stand for rights and freedom.

Sarah Palin
August 29, 2008

by pegleghippie

Mccain has chosen a running mate.  Governor of Alaska, pro life, pro gun, anti-gay, 44, been gov. for a year and a half.  

If you ask me, Mccain is boinking her, and putting her on the ticket is the price of keeping her quiet.