text:
What makes law "legitimate?" - A question from an anarchist - posed to the minarchistSubmitted by Enjoying The De... on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 14:27
So the "anarchist vs minarchist" debate is on pretty strong here at the DP. I like it, let's keep that topic open. Jan, Marc, and BILL3 have been doing well at keeping this topic alive at the DP.
So one thing that minarchists claim to be SO NECESSARY that a government or state court system supposedly has, is the "power to pass and enforce legitimate laws."
So minarchists basically say that "state courts are necessary in order to enforce laws, and the authority of the court is the highest possible authority. Without these state courts, under anarchy or voluntarism, there would be no "way of addressing criminals and criminal activites efficiently or correctly."
And then the minarchists go on to pose questions like "What makes the NAP valid at all?" "Why should the NAP be binding on others?" and "Why should property rights be binding on others?" In a non-statist world?
So minarchists are basically saying "The NAP (property rights) is not necessarily valid or binding. That is why we need a valid and binding court system."
But here is where I see a major problem for statists and minarchists. We do have states right now. We do have courts right now. We do have a "limited govermnent" that is supposedly "bound in its limits" outlined in "the constitution."
So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one. You want a "limited government," you have one, the constitution supposedly guarantees this.
But WHAT IS BINDING about laws passed by the state and limits found in the constitution????
Because it seems that we have these laws and these courts. But WHEN THE GOVERNMENT breaks the limits, breaks the law, doesn't follow the constitution... WHAT IS THE RESULT? Are corrupt politicians and judges tried? Don't we see the government and its employees, agents, departments and agencies BREAKING THE SACRED LAWS left and right without recourse?
So to turn this line of questioning "What makes it valid?" (In reference to the NAP or property rights.) Let me turn this line of questioning around and ask you the same about the "sacred court system" that you statists insist is necessary to HAVE JUSTICE.
In other words, "Is your sacred court REALLY SO SACRED?"
- Login to post comments
Define 'law'
Are you referring to statutes, or what is referred to as 'common law'?
You know what? Doesn't Bastiat cover this in "The Law"?
I'd look there.
The just law is about the rendering of justice.
The just law is about the rendering of justice, when and only when justice is called for.
Justice, and only justice.
The socialists want to use the law to shape society as they deem it suitable.
For, they think they are the Supermen of humanity.
Eventually, with this belief, they make themselves the scum of humanity, as History taught us.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
Yes, nothing wrong with the law.
Yes, nothing wrong with the just law.
Everything wrong with the law perverted.
Ron Paul said this about liberty; I'd venture this is also valid for justice:
(the exact opposite of what the socialists aim at)
"To truly understand liberty is to divorce it from any social outcome."
-- Ron Paul
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
farmer, if you're around,
farmer, if you're around, this idea is mostly for you, but I'd like anyone to chime in.
The basic idea, which you established below, says that language is an "inaccurate" way to relay meaning. We can only understand one another as far as we share ideas regarding the basic meanings of words. Words, in turn, establish concepts and ideas. The meaning of a word is communicated, primarily, through the use of still more words, which endlessly compounds the problem.
This is an issue which I have thought about a great deal. The only solution that I have found which matches up with reality lies in a deliberate realization that words really do have different meanings. Meaning, like most value, is not definite, rather it is in the eye of the beholder.
I think there ought to be more argument about the basic definitions of basic words and the relationships amongst different words. Language is an art; it is flexible and up to interpretation. Ideally we ought to come to an agreement that is based in what would benefit most people, an agreement that would most propel peace and freedom, while we maintain the realization that we can never completely understand one another--this is a complicated concept.
Language is one of the most flexible tools we have to change minds--the popular understanding of words can be altered I think; in fact, language is destined to be altered, it has a history of extraordinary change.
What do you, or anyone else, think of this idea? Am I expressing myself clearly?
I think I understand you...
I also think there is something I would like to add. I will try.
In human relations, this matter of definitions is not simply theoretical. People act immorally based on their perception of words and their relation to reality, sometimes without even knowing it. What is somewhat frustrating is that even when this is clearly (of course relatively clearly) explained to them, they seem to sometimes/often respond with efforts to deliberately confuse the matter and disown or disguise their immoral behavior, which I am convinced they actually do understand as immoral behavior. This I call "being a psychopath." Many of these people know exactly what they are saying and doing and what they want to get out of it.
Let me back up. I am assuming here---and it may be to a certain extent in opposition to what you are saying---that there is an objective reality outside questions of language. Language plays a role, but that is not the whole story, and there is a notion of (what I call) morality that exists fundamentally in the natural world completely outside language, legal and mental constructions etc.
This notion of morality is also more than a utilitarian notion, strictly speaking. (Some of what you have written above appeals to a utilitarian idea: "...what would benefit the most people, an agreement...") I think it's immoral at some level to think that I, as an individual, can make a determination of what benefits "most people" or act on that basis, especially if I seek to bring about an agreement which results on that reality being forced on some smaller number of people who disagree.
Each individual has some kind of fundamental right to be left alone. Others have the fundamental right to live their lives as if I didn't exist. It is entirely beside the point that no one can or wants to live their life in that way. We all want and require human interaction, and most of us even desire to live within human society, which is something more. However, it is still immoral to try to determine a notion of "ultimate good" for another individual. It is immoral to impose a notion of "ulitmate good" on others. And I think that most thinking people have some kind of notion of "ultimate good" and it's a very important concept.
Unfortunately, many people have a notion of ultimate good which necessitates the immoral subordination of the ultimate good of others. That, it seems to me, is a consequence of the kind of utilitarianism you possibly suggest.
I think there is a place for utilitarianism, and it is a very powerful notion which you can see attacked very viciously, but very comically, in Michael Sandel's book "Justice" which is a kind of (comical) general attack on philosophy. Moral utilitarianism has a kind of one-way valve attached to it. In society, there are certain things that we know, if we do them, will result in the frustration of elements of many people's legitimate notion of "ultimate good."
For example, many people have as an element of their notion of ultimate good, the tenet that they stay alive in the limited sense of not being slain by another human while healthy. One has to assume so---a right to life. So if we know that a certain course of action is going to result in the death of such a person at our hands, directly or indirectly, then it is immoral to maintain a position or execute actions which lead to that end.
Application: Doing honest work and paying taxes to kill impoverished brown people in the Middle East (is immoral). It doesn't matter if you want to do it to maintain your current lifestyle which involves *peacefully* and *freely* burning their oil. (That may be irrelevant to this conversation, but it is often the justification I hear.)
In any case, I hope you get my point. There are real things going on in the real world. That is my interest in language, and that is my motivation for an attempt at nonstandard (corrected) usage. Many of the things I say may be strange to others, but I am making some effort to be clear.
Great points...
In my experience, about 90% of Internet debates boil down to semantic misunderstanding. That is, the opposing parties are using the same word to mean different things.
The more simple-minded of them don't even realize it.
The slightly more sophisticated will debate endlessly about which definition is "right."
Personally, I think it is a waste of time, and just takes away from a meaningful debate.
Once you realize that a word it being used differently by the parties in a debate, all that is necessary is to have each party to explain what they mean when they use the word, and then move forward. Once you understand what each person means it is philosophically meaningless to continue to debate which 'meaning' is 'right.'
Of course, for purposes of politics and mass culture, "word branding" is very important. It is like when some cheap manufacturer from Taiwan buys a venerable brand like Abercrombie or Marantz. Then, they can sell their cheap junk for triple the price until the brand is ruined, then do it again. That is common in politics (just look at how the "liberal" brand was ruined in the US to such an extent that, for strategic reasons, they had to dump the brand in favor of "progressive." Of course, the "conservatives" have done pretty much the same thing, vis a vis ruining their brand.
But, that is irrelevant in an honest philosophical debate among people who are attempting to understand one another, even if they disagree.
In that case, increasing the amount of "redundancy" in the conversation, and decreasing the amount of "abstraction" by using more explanatory words to communicate complex concepts rather than highly "compressed" words, eventually leads to mutual understanding.
Hi kyletownsend
Far below (page 2+), I responded to your post which was similar to this post concerning wasting time etc. In particular, you concluded that what I was saying was absurd and not worth discussing. For your convenience, I will paste that response here and add something:
Perhaps what I am trying to communicate should be called "legitimacy."
The fact that what I am saying is outside some particular view of "libertarian philosophy" is hardly an argument to dismiss it or call it absurd.
Using language to describe things and discuss them in those terms is an implicit attempt to give them legitimacy. I am challenging the legitimacy of joint ownership.
I would challenge your example of an HOA on another level. All property, to be legitimately considered property, must be actual matter, i.e., made of atoms---as best we understand it. An HOA has no material substance. It is not property "owned" by anyone. You can get together with your fellow condo occupiers and claim you "own" your condos and the HOA. I don't care about that. But if you want a notion of property which is viable as a concept upon which to construct a society with clear intention and legitimacy, then (I think) you need to adopt my views as dictates of nature. (I'm not suggesting their adoption, of course, simply because they are my views. What I'm suggesting is that expecting people to base their view of reality upon whatever arbitrary definitions you happen to make is absurd, and nature itself suggests reasonable definitions and ways to think about things based on the consequences of ill advised and arbitrary legal and linguistic constructs.)
My two proposed principles of property ownership:
1. All property must be material, i.e., made of atoms.
2. Ownership is something that a person can legitimately exercise only, i.e., is something one can do only, on one's own. That is, joint ownership is illigitimate to the extent that individuals are individuals.
Edit: Here are third and fourth ones (not so well explained here, but just to let you know there are others).
3. Property ownership requires responsibility, both negative and positive. If property is used in an immoral way, the owner is responsible. Property ownership does not include a right to destroy. There is a limitation based, at least, on life, and future generations have a right to your property equal to yours. That is, there is a positive responsibility of sustainability.
4. Property ownership requires connection. Perhaps this one should be first or second. To have title to something to which you have no connection, like owning land by title, is not legitimate ownership.
I understand that people can invent various legal definitions of joint ownership. I understand that people have been doing that for a long time. I understand that most people don't think the way I do. But the thinking of most people is what has led us into the situation which we now experience and are going to leave, i.e., force on future generations.
It's time to start thinking differently and more clearly.
That's fine
I think you have stated your ideas well enough that I generally understand what you are trying to get at. Thanks for that.
It is an interesting twist.
I just put it into the category of things that are so outside of human nature and of objective reality that it will never get any significant traction.
Therefore, I don't see any point in getting into a long discussion about it.
Simple misdirection
People not states agree or disagree to perpetrate crimes upon each other or to defend against criminals.
If that is not understood then people, not states, may be fooled into the foolish trap of misdirection.
Misdirection works for the criminals as the criminals take over courts, take over governments, take over defense against criminals, as the victims are led to believe that courts, governments, and defense against criminals can be done by things, not people.
This is the classic misdirection at work and it can be seen in very simple examples.
"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."
When the people defended themselves in America during the time period between 1776 and 1787 the people created 13 Constitutions for 13 defense associations and all 13 defense associations worked within a free market voluntary government association known as The Articles of Confederation.
The people also defended themselves with an improved version of trial by jury that was improved from the higher cost and lower quality version that was in England under a counterfeited version of common law.
So the misdirection here, in that sentence quoted, has to do with the difference between a working free market government or defense association market, or Federation, and the counterfeit version run by criminals.
Here is the quote again:
"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."
The criminals took over the free market defense association Federation in 1787 turning 13 competitive defense associations into ONE MONOPOLY CRIME SYNDICATE/CARTEL/MONOPOLY.
"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."
That is a misdirection.
The same so called Anarchist named Lysander Spooner who wrote Trial by Jury also wrote No Treason.
Those two works are here and here:
The bait and switch is the same misdirection each time, and the fools fall for it each time.
There is a fool born every minute, so says one man, and another man says that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time, so some of us are not fooled by this:
"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."
The bait is VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION and the switch is INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
When anyone ever says OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION they confess their guilty criminal minds as they off that MONOPOLY VIEWPOINT.
The only reason that such a lie gains traction, is able to fool the fools, is that the lie is offered under the color of law, or under the false claim that the only way to get to VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (Liberty) is through INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (crime).
The lie fools the fools into the belief in the lie because the fools are led to believe that the only way to get to freedom from the criminals is to pay the criminals everything the criminals demand, and do so without question.
How stupid are the fools?
You may need to take a more careful look in the mirror.
The supposed Common Law Courts of England (not America) were of this same duality, or same genuine versus counterfeit, and so the free market force applied in England caused the genuine free market people to leave England and settle in America.
Fresh in the minds of the American settlers were the concepts of our courts, our government, our religion, our common sense, our common defense, and our common needs for survival, AND the criminal, counterfeit, monopoly, tyranny, despotism, MONARCHY version of our common defense.
1. Genuine free market, of the people, by the people, and for the people who reject the counterfeit, monopoly, monarchy, cartel, cabal, criminal organization.
2. False version, counterfeit version, of the criminals, by the criminals, and for the criminals, monarchy, monopoly, cartel, cabal, criminal organization POSING as government, defense, non-aggression, free market, peace, liberty, freedom, good.
Fresh in the minds of those people where the stark differences between right and wrong as defined by at least 16 documents as such:
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
That led to the next document:
The Declaration of Independence
That led to the next 13 Documents:
1. Unwritten Constitution of Connecticut:
"An unwritten constitution that the whole society believes in is likely to be much stronger than a written one that a society does not believe in. England has lasted a millennium with an unwritten constitution, whereas a majority of the countries today with a written one have seen it ignored by military strongmen and others."
2. Constitution of Delaware; 1776:
The Constitution, or System of Government, agreed to and resolved upon by the Representatives in full Convention of the Delaware State, formerly styled "The Government of the Counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware," the said Representatives being chosen by the Freemen of the said State for that express Purpose.
"...by the freemen..."
"...a free and independent State..."
"... lay embargoes or prohibit the exportation of any commodity for any time not exceeding thirty days in the recess of the general assembly; he shall have the power of granting pardons or reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the house of assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct, in which cases no pardon or reprieve shall be granted, but by a resolve of the house of assembly, and may exercise all the other executive powers of government' limited and restrained as by this constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State..."
" which court shall be styled the " court of appeals," and have all the authority and powers heretofore given by law in the last resort
"...sheriffs and coroners..."
"...officers in the army or navy of this State..."
"...to the King in council, under the old government..."
"And all officers shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior at common law, or on impeachment, or upon the address of the general assembly."
ART. 25. The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.
ART. 26. No person hereafter imported into this State from Africa ought to be held in slavery under any presence whatever; and no negro, Indian, or mulatto slave ought to be brought into this State, for sale, from any part of the world.
Those words (lower case common law for example) establish the concept of "we the people govern ourselves by consent" (voluntary association) as opposed to "government by a thing, a monopoly, a cartel, organized crime, monarchy, despotism, tyranny, etc. (involuntary association or "AP" or Aggression Principle) so moving now to document 2 of 13 Constitutional Free Market Defense Associations or State/Republic/Democracy/Government by the people, of the people, and for the people, not government by the criminals, of the criminals, for the criminals AT THE EXPENSE of the victims.
3. Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777:
ART. XXXIX. All matters of breach of the peace, felony, murder, and treason against the State to be tried in the county where the same was committed. All matters of dispute, both civil and criminal, in any county where there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants to form a court, shall be tried in the next adjacent county where a court is held.
ART. XL. All causes, of what nature soever, shall be tried in the supreme court, except as hereafter mentioned; which court shall con sist of the chief-justice, and three or more of the justices residing in the county. In case of the absence of the chief-justice, the senior justice on the bench shall act as chief-justice, with the clerk of the county, attorney for the State, sheriff, coroner, constable, and the jurors; and in case of the absence of any of the aforementioned officers, the justices to appoint others in their room pro tempore. And if any plaintiff or defendant in civil causes shall be dissatisfied with the determination of the jury, then, and in that case, they shall be at liberty, within three days, to enter an appeal from that verdict, and
demand a new trial by a special jury, to be nominated as follows, viz: each party, plaintiff and defendant, shall choose six, six more names shall be taken indifferently out of a box provided for that purpose, the whole eighteen to be summoned, and their names to be put together into the box, and the first twelve that are drawn out, being present, shall be the special jury to try the cause, and from which there shall be no appeal.
ART. XLI. The jury shall be judges of law, as well as of fact, and shall not be allowed to bring in a special verdict; but if all or any of the jury have any doubts concerning points of law, they shall apply to the bench, who shall each of them in rotation give their opinion.
ART. XLV. No grand jury shall consist of less than eighteen, and twelve may find a bill.
ART. LVIII. No person shall be allowed to plead in the courts of law in this State, except those who are authorized so to do by the house of assembly; and if any person so authorized shall be found guilty of malpractice before the house of assembly, they shall have power to suspend them. This is not intended to exclude any person from that inherent privilege of every freeman, the liberty to plead his own cause.
ART. LXI. Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain inviolate forever.
Above are some points in the area of trial by jury in this Constitutionally Limited Republic or State, where there is an obvious effort to "...to exclude any person from that inherent privilege of every freeman..." words claiming otherwise notwithstanding the actual evidence?
4. Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776
"THE parliament of Great Britain, by a declaratory act, having assumed a right to make laws to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever, and, in pursuance of Rich claim, endeavoured, by force of arms, to subjugate the United Colonies to an unconditional submission to their will and power, and having at length constrained them to declare themselves independent States, and to assume government under the authority of the people; Therefore we, the Delegates of Maryland, in free and full Convention assembled, taking into our most serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State, for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare,"
III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by facts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights-subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Crecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.
XVII. That every freeman, for any injury done him in his person or property, ought to have remedy, by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.
Those people in Maryland were obviously serious about their rights.
And a reference to common law courts (lower case):
LII. That every Chancellor, Judge, Register of Wills, Commissioner of the Loan Office, Attorney-General, Sheriff, Treasurer, Naval Officer, Register of the Land Office, Register of the Chancery Court, and every Clerk of the common law courts, Surveyor and Auditor of the public accounts, before he acts as such, shall take an oath " That he will not directly or indirectly receive any fee or reward, for doing his office of , but what is or shall be allowed by law; nor will, directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any office held by any other person, and that he does not hold the same office in trust, or for the benefit of any other person."
5. Constitution of Massachusetts 1780
Before quoting from sources it may help general knowledge with a clear understanding of the two Parties of people known as Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams) whereby these people had very close ties with Organized Crime Syndication, Cartelization, Monopoly POWER. Washington was the Strong Man:
Hamilton was the Central Banker Monopolist:
John Adams was President during the days when the PARTY (Federalists) were working to destroy the main enemy of the British Criminal Organization (or Monarchy, or Bank of England) which was The French. Remembering accurate history includes the memory of how The French aided American Revolutionary Forces to defeat the criminal British invaders. So...why was John Adams so well tied with British Interests to the point at which John Adams presides over The Alien and Sedition Acts?
Back to Massachusetts Charter and then Constitution of 1780 (4 years after 1776 and The Declaration of Independence)
Charter: Explanatory Charter of Massachusetts Bay - 1725
"...Kingdom at Westminster..."
Constitution of Massachusetts 1780:
"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it..."
That is where I smell a rat. There is in that construction the making of a thing that is an entity onto itself, a "body politic" that is then "the government" and "it" does this, and "it" does that, such as "it" furnishes "individuals who compose it," and if you do not see how "it" then becomes a legal fiction, then you may need some effort on your part invested in knowing better from worse.
I can go into this in much greater detail concerning the probabilities of why the last battle of the Revolution was lost in Massachusetts and why that battle triggered the formation of the Federalist PARTY (should have been named Communist Party) where Morris, Hamilton, and the other central bankers enticed their Strong Man Washington to dishonor is word to retire, and enlisted their Strong Man Washington to command their Standing National Army of Tax Collectors (war debt collectors collecting debt for their money fraud POWER in England, and onward to whoever, Jesuits, The Vatican, whatever)
Here is where the proof of how free market government proves again, and again, why free market government works as it is designed to work, since Massachusetts would have been one of the first (worst) Republics to then be forced (by market forces) to end the infestation of despotism, and to supply to the people what the people demand; which is Liberty.
Although the Revolutionary forces (free market forces) were crushed in Massachusetts by the existing organized crime cabal running the Massachusetts "government," those who survived the battle fled to other Constitutional Republics such as Vermont. That "voting with their feet" from one despotic State (Massachusetts) to find sanctuary in a less, or non-despotic State is called MARKET FORCES, as the voters are then voting with their feet, like runaway slaves, from one organized crime system to a free system, and what can the criminals do to force the slaves to return to slavery?
They hold secret meetings and they hatch a criminal plan is the standard criminal procedure:
Moving to another Constitutional Republic (from the original 13):
I agree, it is the people.
But a people in unity is the state, a people in a state of unity, as I stated below, exercising their collective sovereignty through a government. There are technically no states left in the American Union because, 1) no one claims state nationality, and 2) even if there were, and there are a few, they must establish unity of culture and habits in order to reestablish common law for themselves and exercise their rightful republican sovereignty.
You mistake the "state" (the condition of a people in unity) for the government or the "State of (fill in the blank)" municipal corporation. This is not the case. Without state nationality or the condition of unity, the government is left to be autonomous, without a people to govern it. (Multiculturalism is a lie.) It therefore does what it wants. That, I believe, is the really big problem.
It's not what "they" have done to us, it is what we have become, and thus let happen to us, then unwittingly perpetuate.
I just lost about 1 hours work when finding the 403 ERROR message.
I should have backed up sooner, before you responded.
Not too many people respond to my offers.
Those who do respond are often those who tell me what I think.
"You mistake..."
How can you be so certain as to what I think or what I do not think?
"It's not what "they" have done to us, it is what we have become, and thus let happen to us, then unwittingly perpetuate."
If you are looking for an argument then you may want to find someone who is also looking for an argument.
If you claim to know what I think, and you are wrong, then you are arguing with your false version of me.
If that is what you want to do, since you are definitely wrong as to what you think I think, then go ahead.
Go ahead and argue with an imaginary version of me that you create in your mind.
By all means do that, and have fun with what you do, at your pleasure.
If you continue to make false claims about what I think, while you have been offered a rejection of your false claims about what I think, then you willfully choose to make false claims about what I think and that makes you a liar.
I've been accused of making false claims about someone lying.
As if I call everyone liars at the drop of the hat, and that is a fault of mine.
Is that true in this case?
No, if the facts mean anything to anyone, I am not yet calling you a liar, why would I?
You merely make false claims about what I think, as if your version of me can become me because you think so.
That is an error. You made an error.
I am informing you of the error you made about what you think is my "mistake," whereby your version of me is demonstrably untrue.
I can demonstrate how your version of me is untrue.
Now you have been informed.
I am not identifying you as a liar. I am not calling you a liar.
You are now informed of your error in judgment concerning what I think.
If you persist in making errors, again, and again, whereby your claims of what I think are demonstrably not what I think, then that makes you a liar, if that is what you do, so make my day.
You wrote:____________________________________
You mistake the "state" (the condition of a people in unity) for the government or the "State of (fill in the blank)" municipal corporation. This is not the case. Without state nationality or the condition of unity, the government is left to be autonomous, without a people to govern it. (Multiculturalism is a lie.) It therefore does what it wants. That, I believe, is the really big problem.
Who makes the mistake you claim to be a mistake made by someone?
How about that?
How about nailing down the accurate record of what actually happens in the here and now?
Here is a useful quote:
Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all.
So who is responsible for the mistake that you point out as a mistake in your words?
You wrote:____________________________________
You mistake the "state" (the condition of a people in unity) for the government or the "State of (fill in the blank)" municipal corporation. This is not the case. Without state nationality or the condition of unity, the government is left to be autonomous, without a people to govern it. (Multiculturalism is a lie.) It therefore does what it wants. That, I believe, is the really big problem.
If you have a way to help me see my errors then your help has to actually be help, not misdirection.
"It therefore does what it wants."
Claiming that "it" can do what it wants is like claiming that the gun (it) can murder someone.
Who makes that mistake?
I do not make that mistake.
Let's look at what a law is
A law makes order out of disorder. If you look at the etymology of the term we see that it is a 'laying in order' and is "something laid down and fixed".
What makes a law legitimate is whether it creates order or not. What we find in nature is that Laws are complimentary, universal, and do not have loopholes, what we see in Arbitrary man made law is that laws are very often contrary to each other and almost always have loopholes.
We originally created laws and government (Sheriff is first recorded office invented) to create order, to prevent chaos and loss, and to serve justice in an equal and common manner.
Can Anarchy serve that role? Maybe, but the obstacles are numerous and large. Can Minarchy serve that role? To me more likely, and we have a great deal of info on how we reached National Socialism from Limited Government the first time so we can place better controls on Scope and Authority of Government this time.
The ability for us to reasonably predict the outcome of our actions and behaviors is quite necessary to have a prosperous and peaceful society. That means that rules must be complimentary and stable and there should not be too many, and not too few.
Perhaps debating the Pros and Cons of Anarchy & Minarchy in that regard would prove fruitful as well.
If you think order makes laws legitimate you should be anarchist
What makes market order so.. orderly it that it cannot be evaded and it costs nothing to enforce and it happens without anyone doing anything.
It's because market discipline can seem so harsh to bad actors, people who fail to produce or service their fellow man in ways they find desirable that people want states to protect them.
They don't want discipline. They want to be protected from discipline.
Now we all do. No one likes discipline applied to them.
But the difference between us and you.. protectionists, statists, socialists, is that we understand society as a whole would be better off under the iron fist of market discipline.
If you have rulers, you don't have rules, you have arbitrary orders.
If you have lawmakers, you don't have laws, you have ephemeral edicts.
The ultimate rule of law is by the law which cannot be escaped. The only escape from that law is government.
No government means absolute law.
I should qualify Almost Anarchist
I do not believe Adults should have any rulers save themselves, if they are handicapped I can see the need for guardianship.
I recognize the value of a Republic where are Adults have equal station, NO RULERS. I adhere to the concept of a Rule of Law based upon Natural Law which I understand to be the root of the NAP.
I understand that people of equal station should have a reasonable ability to insure MAD Mutually Assured Destruction when faced with Destruction themselves. When a community possess MAD as individuals, it creates a pretty awesome means to deter tyranny.
I say adults because I understand that Parents own their children and have Authority and Responsibility over them.
I believe that Self Rule within a Republic where The Rule of Law based upon Natural Law is possible, IF a majority of people practice Self Rule.
Almost Anarchist! :)
Very similar to being an Almost Christian in that most Christians find that even more offensive than not being Christian at all. Go figure.
It's because market discipline can seem so harsh to bad actors, people who fail to produce or service their fellow man in ways they find desirable that people want states to protect them.
That's by far most of America. So how do you get 300,000,000 people to the point where they are able to participate in the division of labor that allows them to live without subsidy?
You're not going to get there overnight. Moving towards Minarchy will get us close. Children require a great deal of supervision prior to their teens, once in their teens they require less and a different kind of supervision and direction, once they are adults they should be able to navigate this world without supervision or direction.
If the Anrachists think you can transition a young child straight to adulthood without their being able to test/strengthen their wings, and be able to come home til they can fly on their own, I think you need to look at your strategy again. If you're just talking theory and how it 'should be' then don't get upset when people scoff at your theory, it's only talk and no walk.
If you think we can simply ignore all the people largely dependent upon Gov't and simply make the change, I'd offer that there are enough people to form a mob that will decimate those forcing Anarchy to the point Anarchists will be synonymous with NAZI's. Yes, two different systems, but the same hatred will be applied to both.
But the difference between us and you.. protectionists, statists, socialists, is that we understand society as a whole would be better off under the iron fist of market discipline.
How are you going to convince 'us' (LOL) that we'd be better off? Funny thing is that I have this same understanding, save a few areas. You seem to think that we can't have Limited Gov't, I think Anarchy never gets a chance without first achieving Minarchy. Sort of like having the teenage years where those not exactly comfortable with full blown Anarchy (like Adulthood) can have the safety of not having to be fully independent, yet. The US is almost all Children and Adolescents in that regard.
If you throw millions of adolescents to the wolves, guess what, a high demand for Shepherds is going to be created. You're going to get a bunch of sheep willing to use force to go back to the old way, Civil War will erupt, and the most likely outcome is Central Planning again.
The question is moot
My goal is not to attempt to bring about capitalism.
My goal is to educate, so that when/if capitalism comes, we don't backslide into slavery.
I think you are correct that most people believe they gain a benefit from their servitude. After all this is exactly what they are indoctrinated to think in socialized education centers.
The current system will fail. They know it, they aren't buying up all that ammo for no reason. They aren't spying on us for no reason.
Now if you have the 'understanding' of economics that you get from Keynesianism you may not see what is coming. But it is coming. When? Hell if I know. It will come when someone with a lot of gold, like maybe China, has had enough of our crap and blows the dollar to hell.
So all the people you cite who think they are being 'helped' by government protection will wake up. They are going to jump some way. Will it be to freedom? Or deeper into slavery?
Again, I don't know. But if we don't educate now our odds get worse.
If a free society could be brought about gradually it would be more humane. But I agree, it's probably impossible. (barring a multigenerational exercise such as Stef promotes) I certainly don't know how to do it.
A free society cannot be brought about through violence.
So it will come, if it does, as a result of the collapse of empire.
Our empire.
The unity of a people in the
The unity of a people in the context of the legitimate exercise of their colective sovereignty makes law legitimate.
There is no such thing as
There is no such thing as individual sovereignty. One has sole use, control, and resposibility over one's body and actions. One should also have sole use, control, and resposibility of ones possessions. But there is no greaterer sovereignty there.
Sovereignty over anything else is possessed by a people unified by a common culture and habits, exercising their collective sovereignty through some form of government. This is the definition of a state: the condition of a people in unity exercising their sovereignty through a government.
There is no other way to organise a republic or to possess sovereignty with others.
The purpose of government is to be the conduit for the people to exercise their collective sovereignty. Now,the question arises: what is it that such a government needs to make laws about? The people, under common law, have natural rights among which are the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. No government, in a republic, can regulate, legislate, or otherwise abridge any of one's natural rights.
So, what does the government make law for? The answer is that the government exercises its "just powers" over activities which fall outside of natural rights. A simple example is the ownership of a corporation. Corporations are artificial persons which are granted the power own property, sue and be sued, and have infinite life spans. It also limits indevidual liability (barring fraud). Bringing such a beast into existence is NOT a natural right and requires permission of the people, the state, through its government.
The real problem that anarchists and minarchists unknowingly struggle with is the fact that 1. There is no unity among the peoples of the American Union, so they can no longer exercise their sovereignty over and throught the state governments. All that's left is the government without constraint. And 2. There are no longer any indigenous peoples in the nations of the American Union who possess the necessary sovereignty to control state governments even if they had unity.
Anarchists and minarchists choose to negate law, as well as the people and their unity, while they invent something new, without precedent or continuity, out of nothing. As far as I know, only God ( and the Federal Reserve ;-) ) has ever achieved that feat.
Join was a typo haha Joint
Join was a typo haha
Joint ownership is a pretty ancient principle my man.
Ventura 2012
Ancient yes.
There are lots of ancient contradictions: Freedom for some and slavery for others. Freedom without responsibility. Ownership without connection (title).
There are lots of contradictions in language. It is incumbent upon us to discern the true nature of things in spite of the inaccuracy of language, rather than build more error and deception on that innacuracy.
Webreally have a messiah
Webreally have a messiah complex in this movement
Ventura 2012
Are you serious? Have you
Are you serious? Have you come to this conclusion based in part upon what farmer has said?
Yeah, he thinks he gets to
Yeah, he thinks he gets to override 1000 years of english common law because it doesnt make sense to him.
Ventura 2012
Does farmer have a Messiah complex?
The laws are generally based in some long standing tradition, and this provides a reason for you to give these laws legitimacy? And you think farmer should suffer under these laws which enforce unreasonable intrusions--things which are understandably not suitable to him? That is a mean idea.
Farmer should be permitted by, not just the "government", but by you and me, to produce and transact as he wishes, as long as he does so in good faith. Freedom, as much as it is something we must take for ourselves, it also might be regarded as something that is "allowed"--it could be thought of as a general understanding amongst a group of people which is not to be violated, an understanding based in good things like mutual respect and love, not bad things like unwelcome and violent offensive forces.
The present state of law, according to the way that most people recognize it, is in sad shape. I don't know what positive things you can say about the maintenance of traditional "law"? Is normal good, or should normal change? Is it not inevitable that what is normal, or traditional, will be greatly altered at some time in the future? Everything continues to change, and that includes the very way that we understand language.
But maybe by your messiah complex accusation you do not even mean anything negative, I just thought of this! Most great leaders could be said to have a messiah complex, eh?
Joint ownership is one of the
Joint ownership is one of the foundations of the modern market economy.
What farmer is saying is that joint ownership shouldn't exist and makes no sense because he can't make any sense of it. But his understanding has no bearing on it!
Ventura 2012
His understanding of joint
His understanding of joint ownership may be flawed, but this is no reason to imply that he has a messiah complex. We all have flawed ideas!
Criticism and questions provide progress in the course of discovering personal truth and shared ideas, unpleasant accusations have no place in legitimate discourse, unless there is a real big deuche involved who really needs to be put down :)
Farmer made a great and honest attempt at answering my questions and he has great ideas, I would never allow a silly disagreement about "joint ownership" to effect my overall opinion of him. Just sayin'!
Vape ownership...
is very recent. :p
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~
Ventura 2012
IMO, This is a stupid debate.
And I am not just talking about the question of the legitimacy of law.
The whole "anarchy" vs. "minarchy" debate is stupid, and reflects a shallow understanding of the concepts involved.
Both groups propose to implement the libertarian philosophy. But they differ on the political structures and processes used to do so.
However, they do not differ to the extent that they think they do.
This is because they have an over-exaggerated sense of the difference between "public" and "private" institutions.
The question is not whether institutions are nominally public or private. The costume doesn't matter. The powers and authorities matter.
For example, just as soon as an ancap runs out and buys a condo, he has subjected himself to a private government known as a HOA, in which through some "democratic" process, his fellow property owners will have power over him.
The trivial case in which all property is 100% private, and individually owned, is not realistic. There will always be some property held in common with some other people, for reasons of efficiency, convenience, and preference.
Therefore, a highly decentralized minarchist state is likely to end up looking like an ancap state in most respects, and vice versa.


text:
- Advice
- Games
- Toys
- Entertainment
- School Stuff
- Sports
Top 10 Athletes To Watch at the OlympicsJul 17, 2012
There are so many sports going on at the Summer Olympics, it's actually a tough decision to pick and choose which events you want to watch. However, if you know some of the most exciting athletes, you might have an easier time with your decision. Here are the Top 10 Athletes to watch at the 2012 Olympics in London:
15 Ways to Live HappyJul 17, 2012
15 Ways to Live Happy from HappyWater!
Pretty Little Liars: Season 3, Episode 6::The Remains of the 'A'Jul 18, 2012
This week on Pretty Little Liars (Season 3, Episode ), Hanna and Spencer devise a plan to find April Rose and deliver 'A' straight into their hands, until it all goes wrong that is! Read the Kidzworld Recap of "The Remains of the 'A'" which aired July 17, 2012 to discover what you missed!
Untitled PageJul 18, 2012
This week on America's Got Talent (Season 7, Episode 18), the quarter-finals continue as the next 12 acts perform live on the AGT stage in New York. Read Kidzworld's recap of "Quarter-finals Round 3," which aired on July 17, 2012, to discover what you missed.
"The Dark Knight Rises" Movie ReviewJul 18, 2012
The end of the Batman trilogy is both exciting and over-complicated! Check out Kidzworld's review of "The Dark Knight Rises" .
Midnight Red Q&AJul 18, 2012
Up-and-coming boy band Midnight Red have just released their feel-good summer single "Hell Yeah" and are ready to take on the world! Kidzworld had a chance to catch up with the five guys in the group and get the scoop on their new single. Find out more in their Kidzworld Q&A!
How to Dress for Your Zodiac Sign: CancerJul 18, 2012
If you were born under Cancer, find out how to dress for your zodiac sign.
So You Think You Can Dance: Season 9, Episode 8 :: Top 20 Perform Part 2Jul 19, 2012
This week on So You Think You Can Dance (Season 9, Episode 8), the Top 20 dancers performed again, but at the end of the show, 2 guys and 2 girls were eliminated. Read Kidzworld's recap of the "Top 20 Perform Part 2," which aired on July 18, 2012, to discover what you missed.
Amelia Earhart BioJul 19, 2012
This summer marks the anniversary of legendary pilot Amelia Mary Earhart's disappearance, and July 24th is officially Amelia Earhart Day. Find out more about one of the most influential and groundbreaking American female aviation pioneers in Kidzworld's Amelia Earhart Bio!
The Glee Project Season 2Jul 20, 2012
The Glee Project returns with a second season, inviting 14 new contestants over last season's 12 to compete for a guest starring role on season 4 of FOX's hit show Glee. Kidzworld has the scoop.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Retired Ambassador Peter Anegbeh's Inaugural Diplomatic Coup d'état Speech: A Rejoinder (Part I)
Despite the fact that the diplomatic coup d'état staged by the retired Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia, Mr. Peter Anegbeh to oust the out-going leadership of NIDO-MY and usurp its leadership was considered foiled, Mr. Anegbeh and his cohorts, re-grouped and went ahead to conduct an unauthorized Annual General Meeting of NIDO-MY. With this, on 20 November 2010, Mr. Anegbeh used the premises of the Nigerian government to launch his faction of NIDO-MY.
This illegitimate jamboree which held on 20 November 2010 at the premises of the Nigeria High Commission, Malaysia, was chaired and coordinated by the retired High Commissioner and arrowhead of the coup d'état, Mr. Anegbeh. On this unconstitutional occasion, a speech entitled, "Speech by the High Commissioner, Peter J.E Anegbeh to Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Malaysia(NIDO-MY) on Saturday 20th November, 2010" was read by Mr. Anegbeh. This rejoinder sets out to offer factual analysis of the diplomatic coup d'état speech in order to expose the undercurrent motives of the Anegbeh's camp as well as tissues of lies being circulated by the retired High Commissioner to inflame, subvert, factionalize, ethicize, commercialize, hijack and hand over the leadership of NIDO-MY to the highest bidder.
There is the need to recount that in the first official secretariat release of NIDO-MY on this diplomatic coup d'état, it was stated that the officials of the Nigeria High Commission denied any involvement in the mischievous text message that was used in conveying the illegitimate congregation chaired and coordinated by Mr. Anegbeh and members of the Commission staff.
Specifically, in a telephone conversation with Mrs. Dupe Quist Adebiyi (Minister (Head of Chancery, Economic and Trade Matters) and Ms. Francisca O. A. Marinho Minister (Economic, Education and Students' Welfare), these officials said that the High Commission was neither aware nor issued any notice for such illicit meeting. Evidences marshaled to ascertain the attachment of Mr. Anegbeh in particular, and the High Commission as a whole was enthusiastically challenged and rubbished by these two senior staff. However, the opening paragraph of the inaugural diplomatic coup d'état speech read by Mr. Anegbeh to an illegitimate and scanty assemblage of hand-picked people indicts and establishes Anegbeh and High Commission as a whole, as the sponsors of the ill-intentioned text message.
In the opening paragraph of this diplomatic coup d'état speech, Mr. Anegbeh writes, "My brother and sister, it gives me great pleasure to be with you this afternoon and I want to sincerely thank you for heeding the clarion call and honoring my invitation (emphasis, writer's own) for us to come together once again after the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Nigeria's Independence…" Although this quoted extract is itself self-revealing, the bolded part, (honoring my invitation) clearly confirms NIDO-MY's leadership claim that Mr. Anegbeh was the one who sponsored and issued the malicious text message used in conveying the illegitimate assembly. A number of those who made the scanty and unlawful gathering confided in the outgoing Secretary General of NIDO-MY, Mr. Adebiyi Jelili A., that they were personally called by Mr. Anegbeh. It was even said that they were told that the meeting has to do with directives issued by the Presidency, that is, Abuja, to effect changes in the activities, compositional line-up and administrative set up of NIDO-MY. However, written evidence of such directive from Abuja was neither produced to substantiate Mr. Anegbeh's claim nor quoted in his four-paged diplomatic coup d'état speech. Abuja must have been mentioned in order to grant the illegitimate gathering a measure of legality. From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that, as opposed to Mrs. Dupe Quist Adebiyi, Ms. Francisca O. A. Marinho, and the High Commission's claim, it was Mr. Anegbeh, the retired diplomat and the Commission that issued the mischievous "clarion-calling" text message used in staging diplomatic coup d'état against the democratically elected outgoing leadership of NIDO-MY in particular and the Organization, NIDO-MY, as a whole.
To further delude the whole public, Mr. Anegbeh went ahead in the second paragraph of his reprehensible speech to create an impression that he has the blessing of both the pioneering (2004-2008) and outgoing leadership (2008-2010) of the NIDO-MY to stage the diplomatic coup d'état aimed at hijacking and handing over NIDO-MY's leadership to the highest bidders. To this extent, the arrowhead of this diplomatic coup d'état, Mr. Anegbeh writes, "let me once again seize this opportunity to thank the pioneer leadership of NIDO-MY as well as the outgoing team for the arduous task for putting NIDO-MY on track and on proper footing as envisioned by the Federal Government of Nigeria." There is no doubting the fact that this statement was dubiously structured to serve the following intents. First, to create an erroneous impression and hoodwink the gathering as well as the general public that both the pioneering and outgoing leadership were seated in the illegitimate gathering where this mischievous speech was read. Second, it was also meant to sell an impish dummy and perhaps impression that on the one hand, all is well between NIDO-MY and the High Commission. On the other, it is intended to delude the generality of people that both NIDO-MY pioneering and outgoing leadership are working hand-in-hand to achieve the intended targets of the unlawful gathering where he delivered this liable speech.
Third, this statement also serves the purpose of misleading people as to think that Mr. Anegbeh's mission was positive and that he is not on collision course with the leadership of the Organization whose insistence on following laid-down procedures was the reason why a diplomatic coup d'état was staged against them and the Organization as a whole. Fourth, this statement projects and positions comfortably in a "legitimate" position, Mr. Anegbeh's "constitutional rights" to make assertive, and categorical statements on NIDO-MY. Fifth, it presents Mr. Anegbeh and the Commission as a constitutionally empowered individual and body to which NIDO-MY is accountable to. The last part of the second paragraph of this iniquitous speech which reads, "the task ahead of us (emphasis is author's own) is great and all hands are needed on deck to fashion out a workable and acceptable constitution for NIDO-MY (emphasis is author's own) as it is universally (emphasis is author's own) done," bears it all.
Again, when the word "us" in the above quoted extract of Mr. Anegbeh phrase is carefully read against the phrases "to fashion out a workable and acceptable constitution for NIDO-MY," and "as it is done universally" the following are again obvious.
One, "us," as used in the sentence under consideration partly presents Mr. Anegbeh and the High Commission as members of NIDO-MY, a Non-Governmental Organization. Second, based on this first premise, that is Mr. Anegbeh's and the High Commission's membership of NIDO-MY, then, both parties have the right to, on the one hand, determine what is a NIDO-MY Constitution, and fashion out not just a workable constitution but the one that is also acceptable. On the other, it shows that Mr. Anegbeh and the High Commission's membership of NIDO-MY empower them to reject what is considered not acceptable as a NIDO-MY constitution. Also, it creates the wrong impression that these claims: (1) Mr. Anegbeh's membership of NIDO-MY (2) High Commission's membership of NIDO-MY (3) High Commissioner's and High Commission's constitutionally-backed rights of; determining what is a NIDO constitution; right of reviewing of NIDO constitution; right of suspending the same constitution; right of affirming the same constitution; right of writing a NIDO constitution, are practices that are constitutionally recognized and conventional legitimate practices known to and accepted by all chapters of NIDO in different parts of the world.
A careful look at the constitutions of the different chapters of NIDO in America, Europe, Asia, and Africa will show that this is a libelous claim. See the attached as a proof. There is no clause, either direct or indirect, where such unfounded claim can be grounded a legitimate basis. In all of these constitutions, it is stated unambiguously that NIDO is a Non-Governmental Organization and a non-profit making body. Accordingly it is stated that:
"The name of the Company, which is a Non-Governmental Organisation (hereinafter called "the Organisation"), is the "Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation Europe (NIDOE)"- NIDO Europe Constitution
"The Organisation shall exist as a NON-PROFIT, Non-Governmental, Charitable, apolitical, and confessional independent Organisation with legal rights and obligation distinct from that of its members under Swiss Laws."- NIDO Switzerland Constitution
"For the purpose of forming a Not-for-Profit corporation pursuant to the Laws of the District of Columbia, members of the NIDO Americas, Inc., (formerly known as NIGERIANS IN DIASPORA ORGANIZATION(NIDO AMERICAS),INC.), (hereinafter called the "Organization" or "NIDO" enact the following bylaws to govern the activities of the organization." – NIDO American Constitution
WE, THE NIGERIANS resident in Malaysia: Having firmly and solemnly resolved: TO FORM a united, non-partisan, non-governmental and non religious Organization dedicated to the welfare of her members, promotion of the good image of Nigeria and promotion of developmental co-operation between Nigeria and Malaysia and the rest of the world- NIDOMY Constitution
The sections under the eligibility for membership of different chapters of NIDO also show that Nigerians in Diaspora who are academicians, professionals, businessmen with proven and legitimate business records are entitled to be admitted as members. Even, such membership rights as shown in the various constitutional provisos below, are not automatic because it requires fulfilling certain outlined constitutional membership requirement and registration procedures. So, an eligible member who has not gone through constitutionally outlined membership procedure is not a member of NIDO. Such member is at best potential member. There is nowhere in this regulating documents that the High Commissioners and the Nigeria High Commissions are provided for as members of this organization Evidences to support this claim can be seen in the Section 2:01 of the attached NIDO-America constitution, Section 2, page 11 of the attached NIDO-Europe constitution, Article 6 of the attached NIDO-Swiss constitution, Article 3 of the attached UAE constitution and Section 4.0 of NIDO-MY constitution.
Again, Anegbeh is noticed to have in third paragraph of his diplomatic coup d'état speech writes that, "NIDO as conceptualized by the government is to encompass Professionals, Business people and Academicians…" Although he properly outlines the three membership category of NIDO, the misleading part of this statement is the aspect which reads, "NIDO as conceptualized by the government." The phrase, "NIDO as conceptualized by the government" was deliberately couched by Mr. Anegeh to sell the dummy that NIDO is purely a governmental thing and for this reason, the government has right to dictate and direct the affairs of the organization, the right to interfere in the politics of the Organization, the right to hire and fire the leadership of the organization, the right to review, suspend and write the Constitution of the Organization, and etcetera.
At this juncture, it is essential to produce verbatim, an historical document/e-mail which clarifies the role of Government in the formation of NIDO as a Non-Governmental Organization and which also show that Mr. Anegbeh's claim and that of the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia is baseless, concocted to serve certain ulterior agenda and far from the established reality that is recognized worldwide by NIDO chapters. Below is an archived historical e-mail exchange between the retired Ambassador Joe Keshi, erstwhile Nigeria Consul General to US and the generality of Nigerian diasporic community. This e-mail was issued when it was raised, the fears that in the future, some dictatorial Government officials might be engaged in the attempt to hijack the leadership of NIDO or foist their will on this Non-Governmental diasporic body. The e-mail was issued on February 16, 2001, in Keshi's dual capacity as Nigeria Consul General to the US and as Government's spokesperson reads:
To: Multiple Recipients
From: Joe Keshi, Consul General
February 16, 2001
1. This is to acknowledge with thanks receipt of your e-mail to the Consulate�s (Atlanta) Press Release on The Formation Of The Nigerians In the Diaspora Organisation (NIDO-AMERICA).
As previously communicated, the Washington meeting will be held on Saturday, March 3, 2001 at the "M" office of the Embassy of Nigeria, 2201 �M� Street. N. W. Washington D.C. 20037, from 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Registration will be from 9 a.m. For the avoidance of doubt, the one-day meeting will consider among others, the objectives of NIDO-America, its organisation, structure and how to mobilize Nigerians in the Diaspora to effectively participate in the organization.
2. While we welcome the overwhelming positive responses to the formation of NIDO-America, we also do recognise the reservations, apprehensions and concerns expressed in some quarters. It is imperative to address some of the issues raised so that the noble intentions of the present administration could be better understood and appreciated. Equally, there is the need at this stage, to remove any lingering doubts as to government�s intentions and involvement in the formation of NIDO- America.
3. Most of those who have expressed some concern at government�s involvement have based their fears on the past and on their personal experiences with past military regimes in Nigeria. Their fears and personal experiences are so deep and in some cases so disturbing, that one cannot but express appreciation at the concerns expressed.
Nevertheless, while the past exists as a guide to the future, we cannot, however, remain prisoners of the past. It should be recognized that the circumstances that compelled some past military administrations to attempt to set up Nigerian organizations in America and elsewhere does not exist any more. If the Abacha administration for example, felt the need to mobilise Nigerians abroad, it was because of the need of that Administration to counteract the unfavourable image of the regime especially in a place like America.
4. The Obansanjo administration has no such pressure as America today maintains not only a cordial relationship with the administration, but has since the inception of the regime been very supportive of the democratic process in Nigeria. This has led to high level exchange of visits, culminating in the August 2000 visit of the former US President Bill Clinton to Nigeria. In addition, compared to the past where the emphasis was on generating support for the regime in Nigeria, the focus of the Obasanjo administration is on mobilizing Nigerians in the Diaspora to contribute their own quota to national development.
As a result, NIDO-America is partly in response to government�s recognition of the reservoir of knowledge and expertise of Nigerians in the Diaspora and the contributions they could make to national development and partly in response to the clamour of Nigerians in the Diaspora for participation in the socio-economic development of Nigeria.
5. At the Presidential Dialogue in Atlanta, in response to some of the questions raised, the President was very emphatic in stating that while he could not guarantee the provision of jobs to all Nigerians in the Diaspora wishing to return home to Nigeria, he would, however, want to work with them to fashion out how best they could be involved in national development.
In encouraging Nigerians therefore to establish NIDO-America, and in facilitating the process, government is creating a platform or a vehicle through which Nigerians abroad, especially Nigeria�s best and brightest minds, could be involved one way or the other with the development of Nigeria.
6. Thus, while it might be �absurd� (to some) for government to participate in the formation of an NGO, it is imperative to reassure all and sundry that government�s involvement will be limited to facilitating the process of establishing NIDO-America and in encouraging Nigerians in the Diaspora to participate in the affairs of the NGO. Once the structure, the management and mechanism for mobilizing Nigerians are agreed upon, in Washington, the future of NIDO- America will depend entirely on Nigerians in the Diaspora.
7. Consequently, those who are apprehensive of government�s intention and participation should, therefore, have the highest interest in ensuring the success of NIDO- America. The way forward is for Nigerians in the Diaspora to organise their strength into a compelling force and ensure the take-off of NIDO on a solid foundation from its inception. It would, therefore, become the responsibility of the Nigerians in the Diaspora to manage NIDO as an efficient and effective self-sustaining NGO such that it could not be manipulated even by future administrations in Nigeria.
8. On the question of finances or funding for NIDO- America, there is the need for some objectivity, considering the desire of Government to ensure a smooth take off of NIDO-America.
To be continued
The author Mr. Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana, the outgoing NIDO-MY Secretary General can be reached through email@example.com


text:
klephtLine breaks: klepht
Pronunciation: /klɛft /
Definition of klepht in English:
1A Greek independence fighter, especially one who fought the Turks in the 15th century or during the war of independence (1821-8).
from modern Greek klephtēs, from Greek kleptēs 'thief'. The original klephts led an outlaw existence in the mountains; those who maintained this after the war of independence became bandits.
Definition of klepht in:
- US English dictionary
What do you find interesting about this word or phrase?
Comments that don't adhere to our Community Guidelines may be moderated or removed.
Get more from Oxford Dictionaries
Subscribe to remove ads and access premium resources
Most popular
Most popular in the US
Most popular in the UK
Most popular in Canada
Most popular in Australia
Most popular in Spain
Most popular in Malaysia
Most popular in India
Most popular in Pakistan
= trending
Most popular inAustralia Canada India Malaysia Pakistan Spain United Kingdom United States All
Word of the day Noel
Pronunciation: nōˈel


text:
Jason Barrett
Revolving Door (2)
Who's coming and who's going. Tell us about your job move! Receive the Revolving Door Newsletter with expert analysis by email twice a week.
Sightings (1)
Spotted around the media universe
CQ Switches Up Its Legislative Tracking Team - Posted May 9, 2011
CQ Executive Editor John Dineen has announced the promotion of two and the addition of three reporters to the Legislative Tracking Team. But more interesting than that news is that the fact that one of those scribes spent five summe... [FishbowlDC]


text:
The Lying Game Review: Sympathy for the Devil?by Leigh Raines at . Comments
This is the first episode of The Lying Game where we've been treated to legitimate interaction between the twins. Moreover, "Pleased to Meet Me" dropped the most answers we've ever received.
Let's start at the top: Sutton is alive. She doesn't remember anything about the car crash except that there was a guy who grabbed her from the backseat. Makes sense, she was in a car accident with a nice sized bump on her head. I wouldn't expect her to recall much.
I think we're all on the same page about who was in the backseat of the car, right? Derek. Annie said she saw a young guy with dark hair and after that scene with Emma last week, Derek is definitely the guilty party. I guess it's a good thing her allegedly whacko birth mother was tailing her.
As I stated before, this is the most we've seen Sutton and Emma share the screen since the show first aired. I enjoyed it. Now, here's my latest theory. Let me know what you think...
Alec had Derek steal the computer to get intel on Sutton. He used the information on there to have Derek set it up to look like a "Lying Game." I'm not sure if I'm getting my wires crossed, but I'm pretty sure all of the past Lying Games were documented on the computer. They were definitely chronicled in the books.
Perfect cover up, huh Alec? Derek is obviously that dumb and desperate to agree to be an accomplice to an attack and possible murder. What on earth is so wrong with Alec that he was going to have his Goddaughter offed??? That guy has more than a few screws loose.
Annie obviously woke up and freaked out when she saw Sutton gone and either assumed she left her or that she was going to have her re-committed. Alec doesn't realize that Sutton's alive but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
So... which guy did Rebecca mess around with? Ted or Alec or both? And what do you guys think of Mads' potential new guy? How about Laurel's singing voice?
Dang! Laurel has got a great set of pipes! I loved the look she was rocking, too. I want to give a huge shoutout to reader "Meghan" for correctly guessing the cause of Justin's mother's death. Ted was the doctor on call and something distracted him. Now I just wonder what that could be.
Poor Laurel, she's been lied to and used, but I don't think I'm crazy in thinking that Justin really did grow to love her. So many bombs were dropped this week, I can't wait to hear what you all thought!
Leigh Raines is a TV Fanatic Staff Writer. Follow her on Twitter.Tags: The Lying Game, Reviews
Am I d onli one hu tinks ted or alec myt be sutton and emma's real father
I feel sorry for Emma. I've seen the promo for next week's episode where Sutton kisses Ethan again. What is her deal? She has her life back and God knows what Emma should do now. I really would have liked Emma and Sutton living together with Sutton's family, but I don't trust Sutton and I think she wants Emma out of her life.
Honestly, in my opinion, Allie Gonino makes the show! I think she's the best actress in the bunch and she just nails every scene she's in. I'm totally buying what she's selling. Other than that, it was a decent episode.
Jessica would always try and make everyone think she was the 'good' one when really that couldn't have been furthest from the truth. And Jess was so much the scheming twin and always getting into trouble. Anyway, when Emma was walking away, it looked like she was skipping town? (Sad!!) And did you see scenes for the next, ugh, Sutton kisses Ethan again!!! So ANNOYING!!! And ever since Sutton's been back I feel Emma has lost air time.
Probably because this way Sutton can hang out with Ethan, while Emma must "hide." Also, Sutton and Emma think that their killer will kill the both of them if he knows they're both alive. When Sutton went in the water, the killer assumed Sutton dead, at least as far we know. This episode left me feeling not great. I cannot believe Emma is back to being Emma and the life that she grew to love has been taken from her by her evil twin. Oh my gosh, this show reminds me of Sweet Valley Twins, and High because Jessica was so much like Sutton in that, she was always trying to one up her (Liz-her twin) or get back at Liz (Emma).
Great. Allie Gonino is a good singer and actor. Sutton's cut being 3 days old will be hard to explain (I know it was waved off). Ted's going to mention it to Alek maybe. It was obvious that the new guy was getting the tickets for Mads. I liked that Emma hugged Sutton right away. It'll be fun to see Sutton with her life back.
Ok I'm lost why didn't sutton just tell every1 she was herself & emma is a fraud oohh and I think ted is the girld dad but I wonder who theyr mom is


text:
Having intermittent heating problem. I replaced thermostat, still having same issue.
Ford » E-150 » 1995 Ford E-150 » Questions
View questions for:All Ford
1995 Ford E-150
Ford Q&AAsk Your Question
1995 Ford E-150 Question: Where's heater control valve located on my 1995 E150 with 351w engine?
Vincentt, Southgate, MI, December 31, 2011, 17:13
1 Answer
Answer #1PARTS GUY December 31, 2011, 18:58Master
There is no "heater control valve". Your heat is controled by a blend door.
Vehicle Application: 1995 E-350 Econoline 5.8
Customer Concern: The heater will intermittently start blowing cold. When this happens, the heater hoses still feel hot and the temperature gauge in the dash is always steady.
Tests/Procedures: 1. With the heater blowing hot, disconnect the electrical connector from the blend door actuator behind the Right Hand (RH) side of the dash and recheck operation.
2. If the temperature still changes on its own to cold, remove the blend door actuator and check for a broken temperature blend door. Replace the broken blend door as needed and recheck operation.
Answer Ranks
This week's top 10
|1 pushrod
|6 Hal...
|2 CharlesAutomotive
|7 IamSteve
|3 ziptie12
|8 lordwoton
|4 globalhelper
|9 ProfessorG
|5 csubak30
|10 wrayauto


text:
What and how much chicken???????
Baked Chicken Chimichangas
Photo: kenzipooch
Community Recipe from
- 1 package(s) 8oz cream cheese
- 1 package(s) shredded pepper jack cheese
- 1 1/2 tablespoon(s) taco seasoning
- 8 flour tortillas
- 1 package(s) shredded cheddar cheese
- salsa
- Stir together cream cheese, Pepperjack cheese and taco seasoning.
- Fold in chicken.
- Divide among flour tortillas.
- Tuck in sides, and roll up each tortilla.
- Lay seam side down in a sprayed 9x13" baking dish.
- Spray tops of tortillas with cooking spray.
- Bake at 350 for 15 minutes.
- Turn chimi's over, and bake an additional 15 minutes.
- Serve with cheddar cheese, green onions, sour cream, and salsa.
October 2014
This recipe is a personal recipe added by kenzipooch and has not been tested or endorsed by MyRecipes.
My Notes
Only you will be able to view, print, and edit this note.Add Note
Baked Chicken Chimichangas Recipe at a Glance
- COURSE: Main Dishes
More Recipes for Main Dishes
Best Carrot CakeSouthern Living
Classic Beef Pot RoastCooking Light
Classic Baked Macaroni and CheeseSouthern Living
Find out what we've got cooking...
Get our Free Weekly Specials Newsletter filled with our favorite recipes, seasonal menus, and special features.
We Respect Your Privacy. Privacy Policy


text:
Archive for the 'politics' Category
The massiveness of the nuclear is 'lightened' only by a catastrophe. The Earth is geophilosophically and geopolitically frustrating because it's an ongoing nuclear disaster (a great heat engine as James Hutton understood it) but one that is metastable while proving itself the ground of all production whether noetic or material. Whether the collecting of ferrite […]
Filed under: Deleuze, fantasy, film, history, Iain Hamilton Grant, literature, nature, ontology, politics, Schelling | 2 Comments
Tags: Akira, anthropocene, geophilosophy, geopolitics, Godzilla, kate paterson, nuclear disaster, nuclear waste, Pacific Rim, slow violence
Being back stateside I finally have some time to reflect on some recent events in Europe. I already reported on the Berlin Summer school here but, following that, I was in Lisbon for one week for a great event organized by Margarida Mendes. The week-long summer school focused on geo-philosophy and mattering which addressed issues […]
Filed under: art, Deleuze, film, gender, Hegel, Kant, nature, politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: agi, beauty, deleuze, foucalt, freedom, inhumanism, justice, Lucca Fraser, pete wolfendale, reza negarestani, spinzoa
I recently read two reviews of recent books on German Idealism. The first was a review by Dean Moyar of Brady Bowman's fascinating sounding Hegel and the Metaphysics of Absolute Negativity while the second was Sebastian Gardner's review of Markus Gabriel's Transcendental Ontology (which has been out for a while but only recently released in paper back). Both of […]
Filed under: Badiou, Brassier, Hegel, Iain Hamilton Grant, Kant, marxism, nature, ontology, politics, Schelling, transcendental materialism | 5 Comments
Tags: abstraction, Badiou, Hegel, marx, marxism, Schelling, Zizek
Planetary/Human Evacuation
One of things that troubles me about the prometheanism of accelarationism is the relation between one's materials and the possibility ( to say nothing of the trajectory) of escape. Is it mainly a means of efficent breach – of leaving the ruinous mold of the earth behind after we've paid our due, or is it […]
Filed under: art, cognitive science, fantasy, nature, ontology, politics, video games | 2 Comments
Tags: accelerationism, Alex Galloway, Ben Singleton, deleuze, gamification, marxism, networks, Patricia Clough, post-planetary
At the Speculative Aesthetics conference back in March, Ray Brassier connected 'the new accelerationism' (that which functions in a epistemological-political register rather than, in Land, an ontological-political register) to what he dubbed a Prometheanism. This Prometheanism, following in the wake of Lenin and the Cosmists, puts forth the axiom that revolutionary politics requires rigorous post-capitalist […]
Filed under: art, Brassier, Hegel, Iain Hamilton Grant, Kant, nature, politics, Schelling, Speculative Realism | 4 Comments
Tags: accelerate, accelerationism, alex williams, benedict singleton, ccru, German Idealism, nick srnicek, pete wolfendale
Futures of Schelling Conference
I am coordinating the next annual North American Schelling Society Conference which will take place at my home base of Western University. The theme of the conference is Futures of Schelling. The CFP is below. Also, if you are a graduate student interested in attending and want to do things on the cheap please let […]
Filed under: cognitive science, Hegel, history, Iain Hamilton Grant, Kant, nature, ontology, politics, Schelling, Speculative Realism, transcendental materialism, Zizek | 3 Comments
Tags: Brandom, Fichte, Future, Futuristic German Idealism, fwj von schelling, German Idealism, German Philosophy, Hegel, Iain Hamilton Grant, Naturphilosophie, Objective Idealism


text:
'The King of Dramas' Choi Siwon Garlic Kiss Making Revealed
SBS, King of Dramas, Super Junior, Siwon
'King of Dramas' Choi Siwon Garlic Kiss Making Revealed
The garlic kiss by Choi Siwon is the big issue.
SBS drama "The King of Dramas" released the behind-the-scenes video for the making of the garlic kiss between Super junior's Choi Siwon and Oh Ji Eun.
In the drama, they were filming a kiss scene for the 'Kyungsung Morning' project and ahead of the actual shoot, the director said he had to move his cheeks to make it seem like he was really kissing. He said, "I've never kissed before," jokingly and drew the attention of internet users.
After the kiss scene, he asked if it went well and the director said it was good.
Internet users said, "I'd take the garlic kiss from Choi Siwon," "Doesn't suit him!" and "Garlic?? OMG!"Choi Siwon and Oh Ji Eun's garlic kissking of dramas garlic sceneoh ji eun garlic kissthe king of drama kissking of dramas garlic kisssiwon drama korea terbaru kiss


text:
How Well Do You Know A Charlie Brown Christmas?
Take our quiz!
How Well Do You Know 2014's Biggest Pop Song Lyrics?
Take our quiz!
10 Reasons Why Charli XCX Is The Most Exciting New Pop Star Of 2014
Count 'em!
We Award The Biggest And Best Music Videos Of 2014!
Who made the list?
March 18th, 2008
Hey, everyone. Welcome to my Foo Fighters photo blog!
My name is Dustin Rabin and I've been shooting bands for over 15 years. I do a lot of press shots and album covers, but I am probably more well-known for my concert photography.
For me, there is no greater thrill in the world than being closer to the stage than front row centre, and capturing what I see with my camera.
Way back in the early days of my career (in 1995, before it was even a career….) I shot the first night of Foo Fighters first headlining tour at the Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver.
I'll never forget the crunching guitars ripping into me from the stage monitors during those first three songs. The rest of the show was pretty much a blur because I couldn't calm down from that rush!!
Since then I have been fortunate enough to shoot Foo Fighters at least a dozen times, leaving me with thousands of photographs, and countless great memories.
The most important thing to remember is that it all started with three songs.
Now it's your turn. MuchMusic is giving you the opportunity to hang out in the photo pit, IN FRONT of the front row, for three songs at a Foo Fighters concert!!
If you haven't entered the contest yet, go do it!
Stay tuned for more bog entries and maybe another FF picture or two…
Good luck!!
– Dustin
Posted on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 at 12:13 pm by Wendy and is filed under Music.Tweet


text:
Financial Litigation Lawyers and Law Firms in Nebraska (NE)
Nebraska Financial Litigation Attorneys
Baird Holm LLP
Full-Service Law Firm in Omaha, Nebraska(402) 344-0500
For over 130 years, Baird Holm LLP, located in Omaha, Nebraska, has provided its clients with accurate, timely and result-oriented legal advice and representation. They represent businesses of all sizes, as well as institutional, governmental and individual clients. Their goal is...
Law Firm's Overview
Kutak Rock LLP
Corporate, Securities, Real Estate, Tax, Public Finance & Litigation(402) 346-6000
Kutak Rock LLP is a national law firm serving local, regional and national clients in a broad practice which emphasizes corporate, securities, real estate, tax, public finance and litigation. We have approximately 400 lawyers with offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Des Moines,...
Law Firm's Overview
Caldwell Law, LLCLincoln, NE 68504
Lincoln Bankruptcy, Family Law, Estate Planning & Divorce Lawyer(402) 957-2750
Caldwell Law helps clients in Omaha, Lincoln and Southeast Nebraska with bankruptcy (both Debtor and Creditor Rights in Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, Chapter 13 and Adversary Proceedings), family law (including divorce, separation, paternity, child custody, child support, name change,...
Other Offices: Omaha
Demerath Law OfficeOmaha, NE 68154
Omaha, Nebraska Accident and Personal Injury Law Firm(402) 677-5656
The Demerath Law Office offers legal representation and consultation about your right to payment for injuries suffered in car accidents, motorcycle accidents, or construction accidents. With 35 years of experience in personal injury litigation, Omaha personal injury lawyer Larry R. Demerath knows...


text:
Simpson softball is back to its old tricks.
The Red Hawks, the defending National Christian College Athletic Association (NCCAA) West Regional champion, are 9-3, and went through their inaugural Simpson Softball Classic undefeated this weekend.
While several Red Hawks are worthy, Simpson's No. 1 pitcher, Carlye Avey, picked up two wins, garnering the Simpson website's Player of the Week award.
We all know that pitching is most pivotal in softball, so Avey is my latest College Athlete of the Week.
Avey, a 5-foot-9 sophomore from Riverbank, had five strikeouts and allowed two earned runs in a win over Corban Friday, and got another victory Saturday to seal the weekend.
She was part of the playoff run last year, and has invaluable experience for conference and postseason play.
ERIK SCRIBNER, Shasta College track & field
Scribner, a sophomore who's also a defensive lineman on the football team, showed up big early, finishing first in the discus at the Sacramento City College Opener this weekend at 158.5, and third in the hammer throw at 160.2.
LANCE IBESATE, Shasta College baseball
Ibesate, a sophomore they call "Ibby", started swinging the bat big time on a team that's struggled to do it.
In a loss to American River Monday, Ibby went 2 for 5, in a loss to Cosumnes River Tuesday, Ibby went 2 for 3 with two RBIs and in a loss to Napa Valley Friday, he doubled.
Twitter: @tlawrence_RS
Facebook: Thomas Lawrence
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Blog: Alma Matters


text:
Esquire's Totally 80s Thanksgivingby Food Network Kitchen in View All Posts, November 11th, 2008
Esquire magazine has opened up their archive of celebrity Thanksgiving recipes from the 80s; highlights include William Styron's clam chowder, Helen Gurley Brown's strangely tragic Skinny Hot Buttered Rum, and Timothy Leary's prune-and-apple-stuffed roast goose, which I wish were a metaphor for something, but sadly is not.
No word yet on whether there'll be a 50s edition; I'm holding out for all Alice B. Toklas, all the time.
Rupa Bhattacharya, Culinary Writer
Similar Posts
Don't Hog the Oven: Slow-Cooker Thanksgiving SidesHow do you make the rest of Thanksgiving dinner with that big bird sitting in the oven? Pick up the slack with set-it-and-forget-it recipes for slow-c...
Comments (2 )
When I first saw this title Esquire's Totally 80s Thanksgiving | FN Dish – Food Network Blog on google I just whent and bookmark it. An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a colleague who had been conducting a little homework on this. And he actually ordered me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending some time to talk about this subject here on your internet site.
I read online (computer problems) positive feedback about your resource. Didnt even believe it, and now saw myself. It turned out that I was not fooled!…


text:
Torrance Media UnitPrice: $1,899.00
Thoughtful design is at the heart of the Torrance Media Unit. The unit offers functional media storage with a combination storage drawers, flip-down media compartments equipped with high quality hydraulic hinges, and outlets at the rear of the cabinet for cable management. Sleek, modern and minimal, Torrance Media Unit is finished in a natural, warm-toned American walnut veneer. The wood is finished with a silky smooth water-based coat that shows off the natural color and grain of the wood.
Arrives fully assembled.
Material(s): American walnut veneer
Dimensions: 91"W X 18"D X 24"H
Manufacturer: IONDesign
IONDesign: Inspired design for unique and sophisticated style.
IONDesign aims to help you create a unique, sophisticated and stylish home. With their wide range of industrial and rustic home furnishings, from beds and dressers to bookshelves and dining tables, IONDesign has your unique style covered. Many of their original designs combine clean lines and vintage styling - reminders of the good things of yesteryear with a decidedly fresh and modern touch.
IONDesign is committed to using recycled and FSC-Certified woods and materials whenever possible. As a company that operates internationally, IONDesign is committed to and focused on developing concepts and technologies that contribute to the sustainable management of the environment worldwide.View other products from IONDesign


text:
Video Results for "used appliances"
Hemet, CA - "used appliances" search results
Welch's Shoes & Orthopedic Appliances
41819 State Highway 74, Hemet, CA 92544(951) 658-2383 Write a review
Lavicka Used Cars
4099 W Florida Ave, Hemet, CA 92545(951) 925-4200 Write a review
Emmanuel Appliances
29580 Copper Ridge Rd, Menifee, CA 92584(951) 679-8077 Write a review
Paradise Used Cars
27360 Ynez Rd, Temecula, CA 92591(951) 699-2699 Write a review
Appliances of Temecula
28860 Old Town Front St, Temecula, CA 92590(951) 506-2728 Write a review
Appliances of Temecula
28822 Old Town Front St, Temecula, CA 92590(951) 506-2728 Write a review
New & Used Discount Store
2537 S San Jacinto Ave, San Jacinto, CA 92583(951) 658-4700 Write a review
Patty's Barely Used Home Decor
1026 S State St, San Jacinto, CA 92583(951) 487-6595 Write a review
Miriam Gentley Used Furniture
730 Cottonwood Ave, San Jacinto, CA 92582(951) 654-1500 Write a review
Menas Used Furniture
480 N State St, San Jacinto, CA 92583(951) 487-9595 Write a review
ServiceMaster Professionals
43041 E. Florida Avenue , Hemet, CA 92544(951) 663-4793
We help you get clean at work and at homeWrite a review
Extra Space Storage
750 S Sanderson Ave , Hemet, CA 92545(951) 389-8793
Call TodayWrite a review
Extra Space Storage
851 W Esplanade Ave , San Jacinto, CA 92582(951) 389-8840
Call TodayWrite a review
Valley Auto Salvage
1575 S State St , San Jacinto, CA 92583(951) 292-0232
Low Cost Used Parts & Top Dollar On Your Junk CarWrite a review
Lowe's Home Improvement
350 South Sanderson Avenue , Hemet, CA 92545(951) 492-7000 Write a review
2200 W Florida Ave , Hemet, CA 92545(951) 791-2300
LocalAd: Lawn & Garden Clean & Cut - up to 20% offWrite a review
Appliance Solutions
3949 Industrial Ave, Hemet, CA 92545(951) 766-8549 Write a review
More on Used Appliances
If you are on the other side of the table, and looking to get rid of your local used appliances, you also have many options. You can list your appliances online or in the newspaper. Make sure you list the color, make, and condition of the local used appliances. You can also list your phone number if people want to come and see the local used appliances for themselves. Your city may offer a special day where local used appliances will come and be picked up right from your door. Many different towns pick up local used appliances and get rid of them accordingly for you. This is usually done once or twice a year. You can call your local borough building to see if you city offers this service, as it is another way to get rid of your local used appliances. Lastly, you can have a yard sale and price your local used appliances to sell. Make sure you start off with a price a bit more than you expected, this will give the potential buyers lead way to bargain for these local used appliances. Whether you are trying to get rid of, or looking for local used appliances, there are many options out there.


text:
Comedy Showcase
Start Date: April 9, 2012
End Date: April 9, 2012
Time: 9:00 pm
Comedy Showcase
Join us for an evening of laughs with 4 great comedians!
Leicester Campus, Hawks Haven
*Earn Becker Activity Reward Points for attending this event!
Organized by
Event Categories: All and Student Activities.
Related Events
New York City Trip
Starts 11/22/2014 at 7:00a.m.
Ends 11/22/2014 at 7:00p.m.
Wrentham Outlets Trip
Starts 11/15/2014 at 10:00a.m.
Ends 11/15/2014 at 4:30p.m.
Game Changer: Interactive Media And Your Nonprofit
Starts 11/12/2014 at 12:00pm
Ends 11/12/2014 at 1:30pm


text:
You go, L.A. Weekly! After your consistent but futile attempts to discredit Scientology, a drug-free and highly workable technology that has improved millions of lives, you are now advocating experiments with LSD on human guinea pigs. The therapeutic value of this hallucinogenic drug is about the same as that of a sledgehammer or - another psychiatric favorite - electroshock "therapy." LSD has ruined the lives of so many, including Jimi Hendrix, Brian Wilson and Peter Green. Green said in 1996: "LSD makes you break with your feelings; you disown them because they are uncomfortable. The thing about LSD is you can't get back . . . You lose all your fears. You could kill yourself and it wouldn't matter." The Weekly has shown which side it is on - the wrong one. Again!
-Rainer Duve
Silver Lake
I read with interest John Whalen's article about the LSD studies of Dr. Oscar Janiger and wish to make one clarification. The artist who, under the influence of LSD, painted the renditions of Janiger's Hopi Indian kachina dolls that accompanied the story was not - as a reader might conclude from matching up the uncredited art with the text of the article - Fortune illustrator Frank Murdoch, but Abstract Impressionist Gil Henderson, whose work can be seen at the L.A. County Museum of Art and at the Adamson-Duvannes Gallery in West Hollywood.
-Rick Sandack
Los Angeles
I have hesitated to add my voice to the Leather Jacket Love Story "faggot" controversy on your Letters page because of my friendship with screenwriter Rondo Miecszkowski, but last week's letter calling for revision of supposedly offensive language within Ernest Hardy's review begs for comment.
Two issues have been obscured due to the nature of the comments to date. First, as to Mr. Hardy's critique and discussion of the film, which I thought was apt and to the point: At its best, Leather Jacket Love Story is a feel-good wish-fulfillment fantasy about a Silver Lake that never was and never will be, a community where hunky carpenter studs, drag-queen vigilantes and angelic young poets mingle and thrive, in opposition to crass, commercial West Hollywood.
Second, it's clear that there was nothing careless or "homophobic" about the reviewer's word choices. Since our community has become self-aware, we have struggled both for a term to describe ourselves and for a sense of "pride" in who we are. We have done both by appropriating words of the dominant culture for our own coded use. "Homosexual" began its life as a term describing mental illness; "gay" was a term of derision drawn from the theater. Only a few years ago, "queer" was looked upon with revulsion by the generation that had fought to create "gay" acceptance. Now, it seems, "faggot" is the next taboo.
I despair of finding an intellectual center, a place where ideas may freely be discussed, in the musclebound, crystal-addicted, starstruck community we call "gay male L.A." Calling for the excision of hot-button language adds nothing to a discourse of ideas; it is reductive and reactionary. I don't especially care for the sound of "faggot" (I prefer the campier "fag"), but I defend Ernest Hardy's use of it in general, and specifically in reference to this film.
-Kevin Martin
Silver Lake
I enjoyed your "Alternative Top 101" [July 3-9]. Such lists are fun if not treated too seriously, and are controversial. As is your list. I gently accuse you of:
Cowardice - You list the films by year, rather than by importance or significance or quality. That's a cop-out. It would have been far more fun - and more controversial - if you'd ranked them.
Sexism - You made Alexander Hammid invisible when you listed Meshes of the Afternoon and left out Maya Deren's male co-director and husband. Hammid was at least 50 percent (and probably more) responsible for the film. And he's still alive.
Silliness - You leave out many great films by Sam Peckinpah but include one of his few dogs, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Even his friends didn't like it.
Beyond Belief - Amy Heckerling and Harold Ramis in the same list as Welles, Ford, Hawks, Wilder, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Minnelli and Scorsese?
-Glen Stevens
Los Angeles
I do not comprehend by what standards the Library of Congress, the AFI and now you justify the inclusion of the obviously British Lawrence of Arabia in a list of otherwise American films. If you couldn't come up with another indisputably American film, you mean you couldn't even come up with another disputably American one, along with Dr. Strangelove, Chimes at Midnight, Once Upon a Time in America and Until the End of the World?
-Rick Mitchell
Los Angeles