- The road from self-reliance to self-pity.
- Whole gangs of “constitutional sheriffs” in Northern California? Wonders never cease. (Too bad this intriguing article never gets around to mentioning the very important state of Jefferson.)
- Via Wendy McElroy: You’ll never believe the latest group the FBI considers a threat. (I’m going to have to create a new topic category for Stupidity Above And Beyond the Call of Even the Government.)
- While I don’t agree with this writer’s snarky take on Occupy Wall Street, it sure does seem some young lefties are learning some real-life lessons. Including one right out of Atlas Shrugged.
- Scott Olsen update.
- Hard to know whether to say OMG on this Stupid Government Trick or what the hell did you think would happen when you got in bed with the regulators in the first place.
- Speaking of getting in bed with the wrong people … lessee, you get yourself on a TV show that’s promoted as being all about “drunken dares … to war-like fights and sexcapades” … then you claim they didn’t treat you nice???
- Let us focus on a more intelligent species: The six best dog Halloween costumes on the Internet. Plus two, courtesy of Joel.
- Steve Jobs’ wonderful last words. And a touching eulogy from his sister.
“Although recognized as a gang in only four states,” reports the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center,” many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence.”
Sorry but I’ve been around plenty of these people (and I use the term “people” very loosely here) they speak of…while I wouldn’t call them a ‘real’ gang like the bloods or crips, since they don’t have the brains and organizational skills of your common american street thugs…the FBI isn’t really wrong on this one I’m afraid. Juggagos are dangerous morons.
Mona’s eulogy was amazing.
This may not be the time to say this, but here goes…
The eulogy to Steve Jobs was beautiful, and I can believe he was a decent, loving, even amazing, man. I both admired and cursed him at various times. But he was a paradox-in-motion.
Seeking privacy for himself, he didn’t always concede it to others. Maintaining proprietorship for his company’s OS, he couldn’t allow Apple’s customers the right to own and understand the workings of their own computers.
While open source is, I believe, the best way to go, *especially* in this day of fed attempts to interfere with the internet, still a proprietary OS is just as valid in the computer world. It was Gates and Jobs who were the villians here, NOT the OS itself, or ownership of the OS. How they handled their software and their companies, and bullied/manipulated other companies, was the real “crime” imposed on the computer world.
On the other hand, libertarians should understand the need for privacy and for property rights, and the desire of every man to own and manage his company as he wishes. The fact that some still lambast a proprietorship tells me that some libertarians might harbor a paradox of their own. They seem to equate ownership itself with the actions of its owners. They are not the same.
Winston, you’re partly right, partly wrong. Hear me out.
By their nature self-identified Juggalos do tend to be chaotic (I refuse to credit them with the term “anarchistic”, which I’ve seen used elsewhere); that’s going to make organizing much more than showing up at a concert tough.
Here’s where I start disagreeing: “Juggagos are dangerous morons.”
I have two points of discord with this. SOME “juggalos” are dangerous morons. We had a rather gruesome murder/assault up here on a mother and her daughter committed by thugs, at least one of whom had identified as a juggalo. The others did not have such a clear connection. So it proves little about jugglaos as a group. I suspect that if all juggalos were murderous vermin, our violent crime rate would exceed that of the UK. Or there’d be a lot more face-painted morgue residents.
One should take great care in defining any group by some members. This is how lamestream authorized “journalists” called all TEA partiers “racists”. Likewise, the militia movement was cursed with McVeigh, and libertarians have Geshlider.
(No, I’m not a “juggalo”. What little of their “music” I’ve heard… didn’t not move me to search out and listen to more.)
I’ve been following the Occupy movement, admittedly from a distance, but what I’ve seen worries me. The forums at which some of these events are organized, are starting to encourage violence. Sometimes against cops, sometimes against entire ethnic groups. And waaaaay too many of the protesters themselves are saying things that make me wonder if there’s a contest running to see who can pack the most contradictions into the fewest words. The commenter who thought a freedomista should step in and take over as leader of the movement, was unfortunately a typical example of some of the nonesense being tossed about.
I’m sure many, maybe even most, of the protesters believe in what they’re doing. But I’m watching the puppet strings being pulled, and I don’t like what I see.
Ellendra, Encouraging violence against the ruling government is a time honored tradition going back to Concord Bridge, and farther. Of course governments always frown on it.
Non-Violence always favors the government in power.
Just an observation, not a recommendation.
My take on all the Occupying-you have a right to protest, so long as it’s peaceful(not randomly bashing people in the head, trashing their property,and so on)-but you don’t get a guarantee that anyone will take you seriously. Still, if you feel that protesting is the way to go,and that it might accomplish some good, go for it. It seems to me that a certain percentage of the protesters are honest, others just in it for their 15 minutes of fame. From what I can see(and it may not be any where near the whole picture), I tend to agree with Ellendra.
Woody: read again, please. Encouraging violence against entire ethnic groups is not honorable, however much it may be “tradition”.
Matt, another wrote, “Non-Violence always favors the government in power.”
Among others, the People of India might disagree with that unsupported statement.
Hint: Gandhi.