How's the weight loss going j2?

Sadly, radical change is impossible in this country because we have so many southern mouth-breathers we have to drag into the future with us.

No offense to small portions of Texas that nay or may not be enlightened.

slow

Why is it that bandwidth can be exceeded with regular pics? What the hell is bandwidth?

I'm a country bumpkin

What do you do besides cook delicious magical steaks and bike less than you plan to?

pics of steak

.

:ohface: no squash cassrerole or anything?

That steak is raw in the middle. j2's a vampire

yeah, i have no faith in real change. it makes me so mad. at this point i am not wishing for anything constructive, just so much chaos, venom, and hatred, that it burns the system to the ground, and we get to start over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITLNzPoEqs

Pray for a constitutional convention.

all sorts of unproductive stuff

nah, just steak and salad. ate a ham sandwich jsut now though

you could argue it was a little over done. closer to medium than rare

looks chopped

Real change is easily attainable. It is a slow change like a kick ass old tree, not like a quickly growing **** weed tree. Though sustainable and occasionally relatively strong, they don't have the beauty and character that an old tree will have. Bamboo can be very nice, but quilted mahogany is amazing. Figuring happens many times because of stress in a tree. The most beautiful wood in the world is figured, imo. Correlation, probably?

nothing very productive

think im bout to go to bed

Actually I don't think I've ever called myself a "libertarian," because the term is too ambiguous. I do often call myself a "libertarian socialist," however.

The term "libertarian" has an idiosyncratic usage in the US and Canada, reflecting, I suppose, the unusual power of business in these societies. In the European tradition, "libertarian socialism" ("socialisme libertaire") was the anti-state branch of the socialist movement: anarchism (in the European, not the US sense).

I use the term in the traditional sense, not the US sense.

I strongly dislike the figures you mention. Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. Friedman was an important economist. I'll leave it at that.

Nozick, who I knew, was a clever philosopher. He did call himself a libertarian but it was fraud. He was a Stalinist-style supporter of Israeli power and violence. People who knew him used to joke that he believed in a two-state solution: Israel, and the US government because it had to support Israeli actions.

Hayek was the kind of "libertarian" who was quite tolerant of such free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of the most grotesque of the National Security States instituted with US backing or direct initiative during the hideous plague of terror and violence that spread over the hemisphere from the 60s through the 80s. He even sank to the level of arranging a meeting of his Mont Pelerin society there during the most vicious days of the dictatorship.

Quite apart from practice, I don't suggest that they understood it, but in their "libertarian" writings these figures were in fact supporting some of the worst kinds of tyranny that can be imagined: namely private tyranny, in principle out of public control. Traditional European libertarian socialism addressed this issue. I often found myself agreeing with US-style libertarians -- not those you mention, but many in the Cato Institute, for example; in fact I could only publish in a journal of theirs for years. But we had fundamental differences, specifically, about the nature of freedom.

I'm not trying to convince you. Merely to respond to your question, and explain why I'm comfortable with the terms I use, "libertarian socialism" -- which to US (and I suppose many Canadian) ears sounds like an oxymoron.

That steak is just about perfect imo.

No sleep time for me

But he still was better than Keynes.

At this point my strongest beliefs are all about the monetary system and feel like most everything being discussed in mainstream discussion is a distraction from the things that actually matter. The other day when the birth certificate thing came up I was talking to someone who was very on the 'god all those republicans who believe that are so dumb and see he's even given them what they were demanding' side of it all. The painful thing about it for me is all the back and forth about whether he should have done it, whether it matters, birth certificate this, birth certificate that from both sides is a complete waste of ****ing time and the most irrelevant thing at this point. And both sides are going to keep talking about it now, it will be brought up more later with both pointing the finger at the other over the whole thing while precious minutes of attention and public debate over the pressing issues are intentionally lost. They're so good at it I want to throw up a little.

i fell asleep from 8-11 so me neither!

Selma Hayak >>> whatever Hayak Noam Chomsky was talking about in that quote imo

This has been a real problem for a super long time too afaict and not specific to the "birther" debate.