We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Gaia must have laughed I followed a link from Mark Steyn‘s site to a sad story from Oklahoma.
TULSA – Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, died Monday at his home when a tree supporting a hammock fell and crushed him.
Obviously, hammocks must be prohibited and all trees within 500 yards of human inhabitation must be chopped down, on public safety grounds. Blake Champlin’s death must not be in vain!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Egads, a lawyer and an eco-freak. Twofer.
The tree was just hugging him back.
“..all trees within 500 yards of human inhabitation must be chopped down…” Its’s more likely that no humans were to be within 500 yards of trees. Humans are the expendables for environmentalists.
The important thing is: can the tree be healed?
But did the falling tree make a sound?
David Carr wonders:
“But did the falling tree make a sound?”
Yup. It said “Got the bastard!”
Just another of life’s little ironies…
GCooper : Since when did being a lawyer and an environmentalist qualify for being a bastard? Did you know him? Or are you trying to make cheap points at ther same time proving your own fanaticism?
Alex writes:
“Or are you trying to make cheap points at ther same time proving your own fanaticism?”
What do you mean “cheap points?” I paid for this damn phonecall.
Which is a lot more than the typical US lawyer and environmentalist is worth.
GCooper: What is the problem with people who have a craving for the environment? Or, maybe more to the point, what is your problem with that?
(And how the heck do you know that this guy was a typical US lawyer? Being an environmentalist surely to me makes him atypical to me …)
Alex writes:
“Or, maybe more to the point, what is your problem with that? ”
I’m sorry you seem to be having some difficulty with the idea that “people who crave (sic) the environment” and soi disant ‘environmentalists’ might not be quite the same thing.
As for lawyers, you wouldn’t happen to be one, would you?
I suspect you haven’t been reading Samizdata for very long.
Or, if you have, with much understanding.
GCooper : My track record here is long enough to understand that there are people here of many preferences who have both positive and negative associations with the words “lawyer” and “environmentalist”. A knee-jerk reaction is *always* questionable.
Your nitpick about wheter “a craving for the environment” and “environmentalist” are different falls very flat: you’re the one bringing soi-disant into this, obviously showing a bias against people who – pardon my creative writing, forcing you to sic me – crave the environment more than, say, chickenshit and freeways.
Sorry for making a yahoo of this: I simply wanted to know if you were making tasteless jokes on someones misfortune, or if your simplistic (as opposed to rational) categorization really is how you see the world.
No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even an enviromentalist. I’m simply a guy who don’t go around making “bastard” judgement on people from simple labels. A laywer is, by the definition of the word, neither good nor bad. Neither is an environmentalist. The “good” and “bad” – or, as in your case “bastard” – comes from opinions and bias. And it was simply this I wanted to clearify. Nitpicking and spewing phrases like “typical lawyer” and their worth is avoidance of the issue (and often supressed hatemongery), all issues worth poking into, but you’re of course free to avoid the issue as much as you like, in the true spirit of Samizdata.
I still think its funny. Sorry, I know that’s morbid.
The key phrase here is “environmental activist“. Most such “activists”, at least in the United States, have little to do with true conservatism, and less to do with maintaining and preserving the environment, and quite a bit of hatred for the human race as a whole, and those living today in particular. The entire “global warming” support group is a case in point – no real scientific evidence to prove their point, no real desire to do any hard scientific digging, no great hunger for real knowledge, but an intense HATE for just about everything, especially free enterprise, capitalism, and some little thing called success – even when they participate in it. Yeah, it’s a reflex reaction, but whenever the term “activist” pops up, most of us with any degree of common sense think negative thoughts – with good reason.
Old patriot: Again, “activist” is a loaded word that means different thing to different folks. To some, it might mean “hatred for the human race as a whole, and those living today in particular”, but to others it might mean someone who just do what they preach, *regardless* of what they preach.
Isn’t this yet again foggy assumptions where people brush over people in stereotypical and unspecific ways of trying to “prove” that the other side just sucks?
You mention the global warming folks not having evidence. Umm, evidence by what standards, I might ask? There are evidence that the world seas are 0.03 degrees warmer than 50 years ago, but so what? That may mean a number of things proving a number of different things or not proving anything at all, or bits of something but not all of it. Crikey, we humans have a self-memory of about 70 years and a collective memory of about 10, so how the hell are we supposed to have proof of processes that goes on for eons? Just like they can’t prove global warming effectivly for you, you can’t prove the opposite for them.
The next bit you address is just too good to be true, that folks who warn of global warming have a hate for certain things, “especially free enterprise, capitalism, and some little thing called success.” Or as you further describe it, a hate for pretty much anything. I think I can say without a doubt that that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in my entire life, and I can infer from that you are possibly one of those folks who cannot – no matter how hard they try – possibly imagine people *not* being what your assumptions make you belive. Maybe you are someone who thinks that assumptions *are* common sense? Oh dear.
Further, “Yeah, it’s a reflex reaction, but whenever the term “activist” pops up, most of us with any degree of common sense think negative thoughts – with good reason.” There you have it; if the word “activist” shows up, people with common sense (a sense the commoners lack most of the time, I might add) are to think as bad. Never mind “peace activist” vs. “war activist” or “political activist” or “capital activist” or “corporate activist” or “health activist”, or how about “common sense activist”? Activists are people who move things around. If you’re snug in your hole then, yeah, sure: fear the activist.
I was thinking Samizdata had something to do with being “individualist activist”. How very unrational of me.
Alex
Get a life. Their humour may be sick, but it is supposed to be humour.
But, Jonathan, I already have a life. What should I do instead?
BTW, humor is a faceted thing, just like this discussion. Do we all have to subscribe to it, or even ignore what we don’t subscribe to in silence?
Alex,
You’re right. It absolutely, positively is NOT funny.
Samizdatistas are just a bunch of heartless b*stards who make cheap jokes at other people’s misfortune.
I too like to go through life completely po-faced, and the concept of *humour* is entirely overated.
Ha ha!
On the contrary, Blak Champlin’s death is a good start.
On the contrary, Blake Champlin’s death is a good start.
But will his vote still count? Uh, probably.
Only if he votes Democratic
Alex,
I feel your pain. It’s that damned 99% of shitbrain lawyers who give the remaining 1% a bad name.
Which is more than can be said for the environmental “activists”. They go the full monty.
This was my Uncle. He was a great man and I loved him dearly. You should all be ashamed of yourselves and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.