Remember the scene in one Harry Potter film where the wizards in training are taught to face their biggest fear? The trick was to stand up to the fearsome thing and yell out “Ridiculous!” I try to teach this also to my son when he is afraid of something, for example in a dream, or if he accidentally sees something really scary on TV and any monsters follow him into his bedroom.

Now, politics, especially before an election, can be very scary - especially when you read and understand some of the things Larken Rose tries to tell us. But we can look beyond the scary part and actually see how ridiculous the whole business of campaigning is and I am glad to report that there are some out there who can still say a hearty RIDICULOUS!

Posted by Merlin - October 3rd, 2008

So, today we celebrate Patriot’s day, don’t we?

I know, most of us would not consider this ‘celebrating’ per se, but I am sure that the people behind the patriot act which gave them all the additional power over you and me, certainly think of 9/11 as a day to celebrate a great success.

I could go into my usual anarchistic rambling, but I let my favorite anarchist ramble for me, because he is certainly more eloquent than me, and why should I try to re-invent the wheel.

So, here is Larken Rose…    (again!  I know.)

Supporting the Troops

My disclaimer: Telling the truth when everyone agrees may feel good, but it’s pretty useless. Telling the truth is far more important when it goes AGAINST what most people think. So I will. If you think the way 99% of people think, prepare to be offended by the following.

Amongst all the discussions about this war and that war, this policy and that policy, this military issue and that military issue, it seems that almost everyone feels obligated to constantly throw in, “But of course we should all support the troops.”

I don’t. And here’s why…

Morality does not change based on birthplace or citizenship. Whether something is good or bad doesn’t depend upon whether it’s an American doing it, nor does it depend upon where in the world it is being done. So let’s set aside pack-mentality nationalism, and the usual excuse of “This is war!” (which usually means, “Right and wrong don’t count right now!”), and consider whether “our troops” actually deserve support.

Suppose there are criminals in your town. (This won’t take much imagination for most of us.) Now suppose that a bunch of cops with machine-guns are barging into one house after another, at random, looking for the crooks. Would it be okay with you when they showed up at your house? Well, that sort of thing wasn’t okay with the people who wrote the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment in particular stated that law enforcement has no right to come into your house without your permission, unless they have probable cause (more than a suspicion or wild guess) to think that a crime is happening, or that evidence of a crime is there.

Of course, a cop’s job would be a lot easier if he didn’t have to respect individual rights. He could barge in where ever he wanted and rummage through everyone’s stuff (contrary to the Fourth Amendment), randomly stop people and forcibly interrogate them (contrary to the Fifth Amendment), take peoples’ stuff or punish people on a whim, lock people up without charging them with anything (contrary to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments), and so on. Of course, he’d be an evil fascist, but his job would be a lot easier.

Now watch some footage of U.S. troops on Iraq. What are they doing? Barging where ever they want, with guns drawn no less, randomly stopping people and forcibly interrogating them, detaining people without charges, taking property and punishing people without a warrant or even probable cause, and so on.

Um, why is that stuff good over there if it’s bad over here? The sad but accurate answer, for most Americans, is that the victims are not Americans, so their rights don’t really matter. From the perspective of the regular folk in Iraq, there is a foreign military occupying their country. Ever wonder how that would feel? Wouldn’t it be swell if China, for our own good, decided to send Chinese troops to drive tanks around our cities and towns, setting up random road blocks and check points, questioning people at random, searching where ever they wanted, and so on? Would you feel good about that? How about if they said, “Well this is WAR, so we HAVE to do this!”? Would that make it okay?

The American troops in Iraq are not good guys. They are invaders, whose job it is to violate individual rights on a daily basis. Of course, the excuse is that they’re going after really nasty people, and they NEED to be able to do that stuff. Right. And that’s what every tyrant in history has used as an excuse for depriving individuals of their rights. It’s been the default excuse for theft, torture and murder since the beginning of recorded history. Committing evil in the name of combatting evil is both hypocritical and patently stupid. Incidentally, it’s also EXACTLY the same excuse that the foreign terrorists use to justify their atrocities: desperate times call for desperate measures, so they NEED to ignore individual rights for the “greater good.” It’s the creed of U.S. troops and foreign “terrorists” alike.

Many Americans thought it was outrageous for the Supreme Court to say that, at least in certain cases, military folk shouldn’t be doing searches and arrests in Iraq without first obtaining warrants, which requires showing “probable cause.” Why is that outrageous? Let’s try the shoe on the other foot: “The Chinese people were outraged today when the Chinese High Court ruled that Chinese troops in the U.S. can’t search homes or arrest people without first showing probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.” Wouldn’t you consider that a good thing?

Once upon a time, some radical extremists declared that they believed it was “self-evident” that ALL men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Since then, some have opined, with good reason, that what they MEANT back then was that all white males are created equal. Well, we’ve come pretty far since then, but today it just means “all Americans are created equal.” How about Iraqis? Nope. They must have been sick the day inalienable rights were handed out.

Now, in case there are any flag-wavers anywhere whom I haven’t offended yet, I’d like to give the ultimate example of how incapable of objectivity Americans are (not that the nationalists of other countries are any better). On 9/11/2001, something really nasty happened. Why was it so evil? Because thousands of innocent civilians were intentionally murdered in order to achieve a political goal.

Now, for the trivia question. What was the largest terrorist attack in history, and who committed it? I’ll give you a hint: it killed about FIFTY times as many innocents as died on 9/11/01. I’ll give you another hint: When it happened, almost all of America cheered.

It happened on August 6, 1945. It was the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, by the order of President Truman. And three days later, he ordered the second worst terrorist act in history: the bombing of Nagasaki, which killed about TWENTY times as many people as died on 9/11/2001. (Keep that in mind if you’re one of those who are unable or unwilling to even consider the possibility that some in “our” government would do the same to American civilians to serve the tyrants’ agenda.)

Let’s review: killing lots of civilians, in order to bully a government into changing its ways. When Arabs do it, it’s called terrorism. When Americans do it, it’s heroic and righteous. “But we needed to, to end the war!” Well duh, the ones who kill civilians ALWAYS say it was necessary, and think that the ends justify the means, or they wouldn’t do it. That doesn’t change the patently obvious fact that the American terrorists murdered a couple HUNDRED THOUSAND Japanese civilians, in order to instill suffering and terror, in an attempt to intimidate the Japanese government into changing its behavior. And Americans do some amazing mental gymnastics to try to avoid facing the fact that that makes “our” government the biggest terrorist in history.

So do I support “our” troops? No. In fact, “we” don’t have troops. GOVERNMENTS have troops, and they are always used, first and foremost, to provide power to the governments they serve. They certainly don’t represent me, and I don’t want their “protection,” if the price is the constant violation of individual rights. And this is true even if “our” troops only violate the rights of people who have darker skin, wear funny clothes, and talk funny. I guess that makes me un-American.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. If anyone in the armed forces actually wants to defend freedom, my advice is: quit the military, join a militia. You swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION, from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. If you think some guy wearing a turban, hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, is a bigger threat to the Constitution than your own congressman*, then you need your head examined.)

(* If you happen to live in Ron Paul’s district, I take it back.)

PS: wondering how many know that this picture up there is against the law. Yes, there is a law codifying the conduct in regards to the flag, and using the flag to scantily drape a sexy shape definitely means to dishonor the flag. There is no penalty for doing this in the code but it’s probably just as bad as protesters burning the US flag on the steps of congress.  In other words, that’s a good picture then, isn’t it?

Posted by Merlin - September 11th, 2008

I just browsed through some comic strips of Calvin and Hobbes and found one that was very interesting when compared to my experience with the government in general and the IRS in particular.

I would love to post the whole strip here but I am afraid the copyright owner would not like that, so I leave it to your imagination and just give you the text.

Dialog between Calvin and the bully in the school yard:

Bully: I want that truck, Twinky

Calvin: It’s mine, Moe. I brought it from home.

Bully: I said, give me the truck.

Calvin: Moe, you can’t just take things from people because you’re bigger!

Bully: I’m not taking it. You’re giving it to me because we’ll be so much happier that way. (grabbing Calvin’s collar and clenching his first.)

Calvin (by himself): How touching…

Calvin (a bit later): Moe, give me my truck back. It’s not yours.

Bully: It’s now. You gave it to me.

Calvin: I didn’t have much choice, didn’t I!? It was either give up the truck or get punched!

Bully: So?

Calvin: So I only ‘gave’ it to you because you are bigger and meaner than me!

Bully: Yeah? So?

Calvin: The forensic marvel has reduced my logic to shambles.

Bully: You’re saying you changed your mind about getting punched?

So, honestly, does that remind you of any interactions with the Infernal Revenue Service?

I am working on some spiritual solution for that problem at a site that will help to get rid of fear of the IRS. Join me there and help spread the word. The site and program are still in the construction phase but you can help getting it off the ground and - - - be a guinea pig.

Posted by Merlin - August 18th, 2008

This is the sign that a member of that very government has on his desk. If you ever read any other article from this block you know that I am supporting Ron Paul - the person with that sign on his desk as you can see in the picture to this article.

I sometimes wonder how this guy got so far up into government without being eliminated. I mean, look at all the ‘accidental’ death that people suffer when they are about to expose somebody high up in the power structure…

There is either of two possibilities that Ron Paul could maintain to be a pain in the butt of the tyrants - either he is not considered to be that dangerous and is used to get intelligence about all those people who are dissenters, or, and this is what I hope is the real reason, Ron Paul got so much into the spot light that it is now very difficult to eliminate him without creating a martyr and be even more damaging as such.

But whatever it is, it seems now time to remove our ‘Ron for President’ signs from the cars and yard and look into the future. Ron Paul himself had indicated that his run for the nomination would not necessarily be successful, but that it was the start of a campaign that would eventually lead for America to find back to its roots.

Now Dr. Paul has officially started this campaign and I certainly have joined and I want you all to do the same.

Our Mission

The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

This from the new website Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty that I want you to go to, join, and think about the best way to contribute and get the word out - the word that there actually is an alternative, now that after his nomination “Barak Obama bin Laden” changed course from a peaceful warrior to just warrior, willing to continue the Middle Eastern policies.

Here is Dr. Paul’s announcement of his Campaign for Liberty…

Posted by Merlin - June 22nd, 2008

Coldplay’s Violet Hill all by itself is already a very good piece of activist’s art, but with the following imagery it becomes even better. Maybe the original meaning of the lyrics shift a bit by becoming way more shocking, but I have to say, that only confirms that I must be an anarchist - I certainly don’t want anybody in a position to send me - or my son - into a war to be killed and just dumped into a hole in the ground - - and then dance about it…

To make things more complete, so that you can sing along happily, here are the lyrics…

Was a long and dark December
From the rooftops I remember
There was snow
White snow

Clearly I remember
From the windows they were watching
While we froze
Down below

When the future’s architectured
By a carnival of idiots on show
You’d better lie low

If you love me
Won’t you let me know?

Was a long and dark December
When the banks became cathedrals
And the fog
Became God

Priests clutched onto bibles
Hollowed out to fit their rifles
And the cross was held aloft

Bury me in honor
When I’m dead and hit the ground
A love back home unfolds

If you love me
Won’t you let me know?

I don’t want to be a soldier
Who the captain of some sinking ship
Would stow, far below

So if you love me
Why’d you let me go?

I took my love down to Violet Hill
There we sat in snow
All that time she was silent still

So if you love me
Won’t you let me know?

If you love me,
Won’t you let me know?

Posted by Merlin Silk - June 18th, 2008

About a year ago I wrote about my great wonder what our government, especially the federal one, has to do with regulating how much water we use to flush our toilets.

And things have gotten better and betters since then. Just listen to this speech…

Congress man Ted Poe addresses congress for five minutes explaining how ridiculous and unconstitutional it is to require all Americans to use fluorescent light bulbs exclusively soon. The bulbs might be more energy efficient but bring with them a whole lot of problems that make them environmentally very unfriendly to say the least.

There is a three page paper outlining the procedure that should be followed when such a light bulb is accidentally broken - these bulbs containing mercury, the procedure probably comes only a little bit short of calling the HazMat for the rescue.

Another interesting point made by congressman Poe is that all of those ‘energy saver’ light bulbs are made in China taking more jobs away from America and bringing them over-sees.

This appears to fool Americans into buying new things they believe are good for them and the environment while actually hurting them. Another example is the fact that more and more big chain super markets now started to offer ‘organic food.’ These foods might - or might not - be grown by the rules established by the FDA to be called ‘organic’ but if we tally in the fact that these ‘organic foods’ are mass produced in often far away farms and that lots of fuel need to be expended to bring those foods to the local super market, then most of the advantages of organic food are negated. The FDA just forgot the one rule that, in order to call a food ‘organic’ it needs to be grown locally. But when was the last time a big machine like our government did get such a complex issue right?

Posted by Merlin - June 15th, 2008

I watched a mini series about Merlin’s story on TV today. No, not my story, the story of the other Merlin you might have heard about. We all know the basics of the story, what was new to me was the underlying struggle between Merlin and Mab, the Queen of the Old Ways.

It appears that Mab is winning most of the time, giving Merlin a little success once in while, which is then soon lost. But what prompts me to write this post about it is the deep wisdom in Merlin final permanent victory over Mab - everybody forgets here and she ceases to exist.

This made me realize again the only real way to handle the problems with our politicians, who certainly have become the evil overlords.

Merlin and the people of Camelot turned the back to Mab and forgot about her. Attention-units seems to be the substance evil overlords feed on. If this is withdrawn they wither and die. So, why don’t we just start to handle the problems with our so-called ‘public servants’ in a similar fashion - turn around and take away any attention units. They try to tell us that we need to do this or that to ‘protect our children’ - but we know that this is not the real agenda and we just tune out those statements as white noise.

Found a very interesting little video that demonstrated how the news might look, when this behavior is implemented even on the level of the dominant media - which probably will be the most difficult level because this segment of the work force directly depends on those who get a lot of attention units and then hand some of them out to their minions, what’s laughingly called the ‘free press.’

Now, here the video

Posted by Merlin - May 18th, 2008

There hasn’t been a forwarded article from Larken Rose for a while. It’s not that Larken was quiet, neither did I dislike what he had to say, I guess it was just that I did not really had to add anything to what he had to say.

But in his last newsletter he wrote something eye opening, at least for me. For you it might have been actually totally obvious. He argued that we are already living in an anarchy because there is no other way, it’s just that we have made the bully the boss.

When I read this, I had to pause, look over that and had to agree. If there was some higher authority, then some other form of living together might be possible, but as long it’s all humans that make up our rules and regulations, it makes no difference if one of the groups that has formed calls itself government or mafia. It is easy to see if we create an alternate reality in which the mafia of the 30s has grown in power and has just become so strong that it supplied all the politicians, had take over the press and staged propaganda to white-wash its actions and finally gotten into the position of making the laws of the land.

Today we would happily life in a society which would call the boss Godfather instead of president. There would be factions of the mafia competing to get the next Godfather into the godfather chair for a period that all the factions had agreed upon in an all-mafia meeting. With good propaganda on TV and in the press we would probably be gladly rallying behind one of the Godfathers in spe and make donations that our Godfather would be THE Godfather.

Do you see any difference to what we have today?

That’s what I had to think about when I read this article of Larken Rose…

Make Good Choices!

The idea behind “government” is that we need something to make sure everyone makes the right decisions. And wouldn’t that be a great thing? Don’t we need some entity which enforces moral, just laws on all of those flawed, careless, sometimes malicious human beings? Isn’t that a good and necessary thing to do?

Well, it might be, if something OTHER than human beings were going to run the thing. But guess who decides what the “laws” will say? Guess who decides what those “right decisions” are, which are going to be forced on all of us? That’s right: PEOPLE. In fact, usually the worst people around. So the question becomes, if we NEED something making us mere mortals make the right decisions, how do you make sure that IT makes the right decisions?

For example, lots of people say we need “government”–a big, powerful, authoritarian control machine–to stop those nasty people who might decide that MURDER is a good idea. Yes, it would be nice to have something that did that; something to protect us from all the sadistic thugs of the world. And has the “government” beast done that? Hardly. In fact, the number of murders committed in the name of “government” (NOT including wars) exceeds a HUNDRED MILLION in the last 100 years. Put another way, an average of over a million people every year, for the last CENTURY, were “legally” murdered. (See “Death by Government” by R.J. Rummel.)

But we neeeeeeeed “government” to protect us! Why? Because some people might choose to harm us! And when you build that big authoritarian “protection” machine, what happens when the very people who want to harm us get control of it? Open a history book and find out.

But we neeeed “government” to protect us from gangs of thugs! What do you think the IRS is? In the name of “government,” thieves steal around two TRILLION dollars a year now, in this country alone. That averages out to around $14,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, stolen in the name of “authority.” And people are STILL batty enough to say that we NEED “government” to protect us from thieves! Look how “legal” murder, theft, oppression, and assault compares to “illegal” crimes, and you’ll see how utterly insane it is to think that “government” is a PROTECTOR.

Furthermore, authoritarians don’t limit what kinds of “right decisions” it will foist upon everyone else. Yes, I’d like someone forcibly stopping murders, but both history and basic logic say that “government” is NOT the thing to use. But the “government” control freaks like to meddle in all manner of non-violent, non- fraudulent choices people make every day as well. As a sickening recent example, a bunch of federal fascists recently raided a business and swiped lots of property. Guess what the guy was selling. Crystal meth? Nope. Cocaine? Nope. Rocket launchers? Nope. Something far more sinister.

Milk.

I wish I was kidding. You see, some god-complex psychos imagining themselves to be “authority” decided that, for your own good (of course), THEY will decide what is best for you. And they decided that milk that just came out of a cow (aka “raw milk”) isn’t fit for human consumption. You might agree. The trouble is, they didn’t just make that decision for themselves, or for their kids, they made it for everyone in the country, and hired MEN WITH GUNS to go after anyone who makes a different decision. In case you think I’m making this up, here’s the story:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63225

I can’t think of a better example of why it’s profoundly IDIOTIC to think that it’s a good idea to let politicians choose and forcibly impose “good choices” on everyone. In the case of raw milk, I happen to agree with the farmer: it’s a lot more healthy than the usual processed kind. There are lots of other areas–most, in fact– in which I think the government “regulatory” commands are not just wrong, but dangerous. Vaccinations is another fine example of something authoritarians want to forcibly impose on everyone (Hillary has harped on it in the past), despite all the evidence showing that many vaccinations are far more dangerous than they are helpful.

But ultimately, whether the busy-body government regulators are right or wrong on any given subject, letting them forcibly impose THEIR decisions on everyone is utterly idiotic, not to mention evil. This is true even when they get something right. For example, I think snorting snuff that fries your brain is a pretty stupid thing to do. But it’s not nearly as idiotic, dangerous, evil, or destructive to society as putting two MILLION people in CAGES for possessing substances that politicians (who probably all drink alcohol) have decided count as the “wrong decision.”

The entire premise behind the “government” myth is that SOMEONE has to decide what is right, and then impose it on the rest of us. Otherwise, there will be chaos! Well, if you could find someone INCAPABLE of ever making the wrong decision, such logic might make sense (though it would still violate the right of every person to be free). But if you don’t trust your neighbor to make the right decisions, why on earth would you trust some crooked windbag in D.C. to make the decision, and then FORCE it on your neighbor? Where is there the slightest indication that those in “government” make better choices than anyone else?

And if your neighbor commits the unspeakable sin of drinking raw milk, or makes some equally heinous decision, and it ends up being unhealthy, he harms himself. He doesn’t harm you. But the “government” myth dictates that the politicians get to MAKE you comply with THEIR decisions, even if you know darn well that their decision is WRONG (as I believe it is in the case of the milk issue).

Individuals make decisions. Some of them are bad decisions. That’s called life. Deal with it. The idea that creating a big, powerful authoritarian machine–RUN BY PEOPLE–can eliminate, or even reduce wrong decisions, has no basis in logic or history. With every issue from murder to what kind of milk you can drink, “government” has shown time and time again that it will come down on the WRONG side of the issue, and then violently impose its stupidity on millions of people who would have made the right decision.

People say that anarchy “will never work” in the real world. So, in the real world, see for yourself whether the myth of “government” works, by taking the following quiz.

1. Which occurs more, “illegal” murder, or “legal” murder? (Don’t forget that little thing called “war.”)
2. Which occurs more, “illegal” theft, or “legal” theft? (Don’t forget the IRS, and state tax collectors.)
3. Which occurs more, “illegal” fraud, or “legal” fraud? (Don’t forget the IRS and the Federal Reserve.)
4. Which occurs more, “illegal” assault, or “legal” assault? (Don’t forget the military, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the INS, beat cops–no pun intended, etc.)

As a bonus question, name ONE person in Congress who you think would make BETTER decisions about your safety, your health, your future, your finances, and your life than YOU would. Good luck.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

(P.S. The one guy in Congress who might be almost on par with you is Ron Paul, who would also agree that YOU should be the one making such decisions, not “government”–not even himself. In other words, the one guy in Congress who is smart enough to make decisions worth respecting is the one guy who–with very rare exceptions–does NOT want to impose his decisions on you.)

(P.P.S. It would be the right decision for you to go buy and read my book, “How To Be a Successful Tyrant” (www.tyrantbook.com). Therefore, I intend to come to your house and make you do the right thing at gunpoint. Oh, I forgot, I believe in freedom, so I can’t do that. I guess I’ll just have to let you decide for yourself whether that’s the right thing to do. Darn.)

Posted by Merlin Silk - May 6th, 2008

Sometimes two email that first seem to be unrelated, turn up to create a 9 on the Richter scale of synchronicity.

Today I got first such a self-evident definition and explanation of a free society that I wonder why there are so many who don’t get this…

You may watch the full Flash Animation.

It might not be quite easy to follow in some areas of the text, but I think everybody must be able to get the gist of it!

The next on is a more practical application of the first…

If you combine those two little clips and form an action item out of them, what would you get.

No, this is not a rhetoric question - I would really like to get some answers because I am not so sure what to do.

Posted by Merlin Silk - April 28th, 2008

I grew up and live in times when the view of gender and sex certainly changed and is still changing. Initially it was the natural order of things that papa was out to work and mama was home taking care of the house and children.

Then came the ’sexual revolution’ which changed all that. All was turned upside down and put together in a different way. Somehow I ended up with the deep rooted opinion that it is very, very bad to comment in a way that could be considered sexist. Only the inner values, which are independent of gender, were of relevance.

That naturally created some discrepancy between what I could observe and what I was supposed to observe. Let’s take the example of a very pretty girl. One guy who, like me, was drilled to see only the inner values - even though that was rather difficult to do - started a conversation about philosophical questions of life, the universe and everything to engage the intellectual being inside that pretty exterior, and got nowhere.
The other guy just locked his eyes onto her body, drooling noticeable, only able to utter such intelligent thoughts as “Wow, you are so beautiful, can I have your number?” Not a mention of the inner qualities but he usually got the number.

Often the purely sexual aspect is exhibited - oozing sexuality instead of displaying a masters degree or a doctor title. And funny enough this is mostly done by the female, who officially works on being appreciated for her intellect and not the cleavage. Let’s take a normal business setting. Men are usually totally a-sexual in such an environment, buttoned up shirt with a tie. But the female executive often show off her non-intellectual qualities. What would happen if men would do that?

All these thought, I have to admit, never really surface totally within me, until very recently, when I ran into a picture of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.

Ms. Merkel is probably a very intelligent person, why in the world is she sexualizing her appearance so much. There is no beauty in this as she is not a particularly beautiful person, and whom is she trying to attract? There certainly are other options to dress as you notice when you look at the person in the background behind Ms. Merkel.

When I though about how this would look like if the male part of the political world would give up its a-sexuality and let it all hang out as well, I became curious. So I went out to find if it did indeed exist, and to my total surprise, I found it.

Wouldn’t that put a completely new face on politics? Please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to bash either Bush nor Merkel. It is just that here we are offered by these very public figures and understanding of how much double talk exists in the arena of emancipation. We could use any setting in business as well, we would, most likely, find a similar situation.

Hopefullu, after draining my brain of inner conflict, I will now be able to just compliment a woman on her looks without the idea of violating the emancipation law. Because, quite honestly, I appreciate good looks just as any other male. But what do you think, should we men start fighting for sexual equality in politics and business?

Posted by Merlin Silk - April 20th, 2008

keep looking »

Search

Recently Written

• Campaigning all together
• Mating of the common water shrew
• Seinfeld/Gates v. Hodgman/Long
• Soon my Pretties You Will be Mine
• Supporting our troops on Patriot’s Day
• Must read - if you have a son…
• Hsi Lai Temple - Buddhist Culture in Hacienda Heights
• What a difference BigMac makes - 500 little calories
• Calvin and Hobbes and the IRS
• Happiness - real or synthetic

Categories

• Activities
• Art
• Audio
• Browsing
• Computer
• Creativity
• Diary
• Educational
• Emotional
• Fun Stuff
• History
• Ideas
• Inspiration
• Internet
• Larken Rose
• Marketing
• Music
• Philosophical
• Politics
• Reminiscence
• Science
• Snippets
• Stories
• Thoughts
• Video
• Wellness

Archives

• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007

Blogroll

• Charles Stross
• Don to Earth
• Engadget
• Instructables
• Ming the Mechanic
• Onion News Network
• Rick Mercer
• TED
• The Sandorian Grove
• Tom’s Hardware
• Ysabella Brave

Admin

• Log in
• RSS
• Comments RSS
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Subscribe to