freecounterpoint: The Irresistible Rule of the State

Sunday, October 23, 2011

The Irresistible Rule of the State

13 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...: So, let's see. It's 2008, John Kerry, a perfect little gerbilian slice of Pepeana, claims to be Catholic and at the same time is all gung-ho about this nation's industrial capacity slaughter of the unborn. Not that there's anything wrong with that; just he and Nancy playing down and dirty by the school yardarm.
So this group, Catholic Answers, has a debate on whether "Catholic" politicos who embrace actions openly, directly, opposed to a central teaching of the Church are Catholic at all. Should such be excommunicated? etc....
Now, setting aside the question "What would Jesus do?", the US Constitution clearly sets out the right of citizens to have free speech of precisely this sort--the right to speak and write their thoughts on the actions of political figures. That whole King vs Rebel thing.
Ah, but then comes Obamakles merrily rowing down his River Charly, and somehow, during all the radiance of his going Supernova on the American ass, that little Constitution paper thingy kinda gets burnt to a crisp, crumbled into dust, and mixed into the chow for the Sorosian schwein. So when Kerry mutters imprecations about those uppity peasants who would dare question his right to suck down Holy wafers at his Church of St. Teresa of Ely in Hyannisport, well the Obamaklean One is their to set things right. And sics the IRS on Catholic Answers.
So, so far, old hat, nothing that an FDR or LBJ or RMN wouldn't, or didn't, do. You know, call in for an audit. Scry extra hard for anything murky in the finances or shady in the tax payments. . The IRS would send a message, "We Not Happy", and the recipient of that thought would make sure the books were squeaky clean while this particular group of bastards were in office.
But, The One is not about old hats. No softly corrupt or nuanced Government oppression for him. Nope, it's Chicago all the way: knees are for whacking, heads for cracking, and there ain't no law but what da Machine says. So now no more book checking as proxy, but a direct "Shut up, and do as we tell you, or all your Gold enters our Piss". Why, it makes Pepe shed tears of pride. Royal club whacked to Peasant, Christer, stomach. Good stuff.
But, even better, if Peasant should seek redress in the courts of High Justice, the IRS whacks and whacks again, and then, at the very last moment, just before the courts are gonna tell 'em to stop doing that shit, the IRS pulls back, mutters a "hey, I'm sorry, yeah, sure, sorry" and so when Peasant goes to the court the Bench looks down and says: "Whaddya complainin' about? Didn't they just say they're sorry? Dismissed!".
So Peasant staggers out of court and gets immediately whacked and whacked again by Pepe [yet kewl, and dressed in his height of IRS fashion]. "Go on, boy, go cry to the courts again. I'll just say "sorry" again, and you'll still be puking over the rail".
Really good stuff.; 10/23/2011 9:38 AM
Mr roT said...: Thank you AA, for this. Give me a minute to mull and check your email.

I am slow for a reason.; 10/23/2011 10:29 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Noted, Herr Rott: It may be that being in Wien, as opposed to SudParis, Texas, is just what the doctor ordered.
e-mail when you can.; 10/23/2011 12:25 PM
Charly said...: This is a side issue but your opening comment suggests one can't possibly be a catholic and pro-choice.
If so, is it conceivable to think of oneself as a catholic and favor the ordination of women, contraception, etc...? More generally, is strict adherence to dogma the only way to think of oneself a catholic without being called a hypocrite (which is what I understand your comment implies) ?
If not, which tenets can safely be done away with and which can't ?

And as a tangent to the tangent, does this apply to all monotheistic religions ?

Flippant responses unnecessary but I also understand how challenging it can be to control oneself in all circumstances.; 10/23/2011 12:49 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Only one flip response, Charly, which is a testament to self-control:

The tangent to a tangent line is the tangent line.

Anyway, I understand your point. But, as you said, it is tangent to the point of the post.; 10/23/2011 1:23 PM
Mr roT said...: AA, had a chance to read this, such as I am capable of now.

I think you're in violation of about half the New Speech Codes, but don't worry since everything is falling to shit now.; 10/23/2011 1:30 PM
Charly said...: There's been no need to stick to euclidian geometry at least since Pythagoras originated the notion of a spherical earth.; 10/23/2011 5:04 PM
Tecumseh said...: It's "Euclidean", not "euclidian" -- at least, in the Queen's English.

That said, what do Euclid and Pythagoras have to do with the subject of the post? I'm lost.; 10/23/2011 8:53 PM
Mr roT said...: Perry dumped Queen's English in Texas.; 10/23/2011 9:02 PM
Charly said...: The tangent to a tangent line is the tangent line.
Pythagoras knew the earth was spherical. In spherical geometry, a tangent is a great circle arc.; 10/24/2011 3:06 AM
Tecumseh said...: I would call it a geodesic, but hey, why quibble with words?; 10/24/2011 9:07 AM
Charly said...: Great circle arc is just as correct - no need to quibble.; 10/24/2011 12:15 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Unfortunately, Charly, there is no evidence Pythagoras knew the Earth was spherical. He may have, he may not have, we have no record whatsoever on this. By the time of Eratosthenes, sure, but that was many hundreds of years later.
Quite the jump there, from Euclidean geometry to "Heck, Why not spherical?"
Well, why the heck not! If you want, go full Hyperbolic.
Still, the strange thing about that spherical geometry, the one where geodesics are along great circles? It is still true that the tangent to the tangent line is the tangent line.
So what were you getting at by that jump?; 10/24/2011 10:22 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)