Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Hanging Chads

You know, it bears repeating that the catastrophe of my brother's death is a catastrophe delivered thousand-upon-thousand-fold because people disapprove of each others' imaginary deities or social compacts or systems of material distribution.

Posted by IOZ at 10:44 AM | email »
Labels:

10 comments:

Gridlock said...

Each death is like destroying the mona lisa, because each one is the ultimate and irrevocable ending of something entirely unique and entirely irreplaceable.

Such is the horrible, almost unbearable existence of the convinced atheist.

3:52 PM
Anonymous said...

Bill Hicks had a routine about the War on Drugs and how it was always headed by someone with a law enforcement background - never a recovered user with some empathy and appreciation for what addicts go through. And considering the ranks of counselors at rehab facilities are filled with ex-users that's especially telling. All administrations go out of there way to be "tough on drugs" - which simply means criminalizing usage and assuring the continuing tragedy you just went through.
Gridlock: as a convinced atheist I must disagree with you. IOZ’s brothers’ death is tragic because he should have had so many more years, but death itself is simply part of the great cycle of life. A dear friend who is a born-again Christian asked me “doesn’t it bother you to be nothing more than worm-food?” To which I replied “worm-food is a perfectly noble thing to be and if that’s what I become I’m damned proud to be so.” Just let the worms feast on me after I’ve wrung enough years out, that’s all I care about.

4:31 PM
Solar Hero said...

Malebranch or some French existentialist said "Death is the process that turns your project into your legacy."

5:18 PM
Frederick said...

Ahhaha, what a crock of shit, gridlock.

6:20 PM
Peter L. Winkler said...

How did social disaproval cause your brother's addiction, or exacerbate it once he initiated it? It should have been a disincentive to taking drugs in the first place.

6:50 PM
TGGP said...

I don't think much of Hicks' theory. The current president used to partake in illicit substances, as did his two predecessors (W was even an addict, albeit to alcohol). Didn't make a dime's worth of difference to the War on Some Drugs.

7:10 PM
IOZ said...

I believe Gridlock was making a smirking self-identification, not a glib dismissal, for the record.

10:06 PM
Gridlock said...

Indeed.

5:49 AM
Gridlock said...

I mean, blowing the shit out of people is OK if your sky-fairy is going to pick up the pieces afterwards.

5:50 AM
Anonymous said...

TGGP: Don't blame Hicks, blame me. I didn't present a very nuanced version of his routine. His point was if you're gonna have someone in charge of drug policy that person should never have a law enforcement background because drug use should not be criminalized. The person in charge should be concerned with the health and well-being of the people unable to control their drug intake, thus creating problems for themselves. Such a person is more likely to be found among the ranks of former users. That doesn’t mean all former uses would have such empathy.

1:12 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)