Archive for April, 2009

Sayeeda Warsi, a sound libertarian conservative, has the correct line. S/he decries state-sponsored “multiculturalism”, whereby Whitehall goons, cultural relativists and ministerial bosses seek to segment people into uniform groups, with largely male self-appointed representatives. “Community leaders” who grasp power and spurious legitimacy, and with whom the Tsars of Multiculturalism can negotiate.

BNPukBNP’s analysis is often insightful. But in SWs case, the criticism is misplaced.

Regards, andrea


Read Full Post »

Dear silverhuntress,

Excellent vid. Great channel. Hi from a sex-and-gender-rebel poly gal.

Hadnt thought of jealousy as an indicator of two types of emotional miscommunication or non-communication:

(i) no implication of a fault on another lover’s part, nor even my/them being lazy in not talking

(ii) does have that implication

That’s really insightful.

Ahh, communication. When I ask if I may hold someone’s hand, maybe stroking their palm with my thumb, maybe an intro walk in Hyde Park, I sometimes say (if bold) something like this: “Do you like conversation by talk or kissing or caressing, or a mixture? Don’t answer now. Keep it in mind while we get to know each other. Hopefully not too much crashing of emotional gears. Do you like Dvořák or Stravinsky? Tell me about another of your lovers, names not obligatory. Do you do racy pillow talk?”

I try to store in my heart Eric Bloomquists razor sharp remark: “Jealousy is neither, as some people feel, proof of love nor proof of emotional immaturity…. jealousy is best dealt with by recognizing it and discussing it when it happens.”

Am just reading new wiki article on Judge Learned Hand. What a YT and wiki saddo 🙂 . There’s a sentence I would rewrite as: “[a] combination of love, reverence and imagination that to me is the epitome of all good friendships”.

Regards and ♥ andrea

Read Full Post »

Dear Beki, no comments prior to mine? There’s no justice.

Still, there are stranger things – like monogamy. But, if that’s someone’s pleasure, like a good libertarian, I’m not stopping those who do the “exclusive couple” thing. After all, marriage has not yet been declared an unconstitutional form of slavery 😉

Am reading “Conflict in alternative relationships – the monoamorous paradigm.” Nice.

You are an inspiring, positive, fun, life-enhancing person.

Regards ♥ andrea

Read Full Post »

Laughed myself out of my seat at 1:30.

“In a world were people are constantly bickering and fighting about superfluous things like points of view.”

When you’re wired & angry, even a Brève Rencontre avec vous must be like walking into a tornado and buzz saw, both blowing around Centre Court, whilst avoiding any second hand analogies, rallied between Sampras and Agassi.

Youre stretching my credulity in claiming this is unscripted.

Youre maddeningly close to genius.

♥♥ andrea

Read Full Post »

Dear StopShariaLawNow,

Thanks for posting this excellent vid.

In a nutshell, the Islamic Ideology is a textbook example of virulent, clerical totalitarianism.

It is a very powerful, paranoiac mind virus. Once infected, its victims have no higher goal than to triumph over others who think differently.

The crux of the matter is sura 9.029. Consider the PICKTHAL translation:

“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

So, a true Mohammedan must (i) fight against those who do not believe, AND (ii) demand they pay the Jizya tax as a symbol of subjection, OR (iii) convert non-believers to the Ideology.

This duty is absolute and irrevocable because, in the mind of the virus victim, it is literally the word of the god-thing.

One of the primary adaptive strategies of the Islamic Ideology is to fix itself at a level of consciousness and cultural life that places it beyond rational criticism.

The mind virus installs itself in the super-ego internally, and externally creates a form of culture called clerical fascism.

Take care with this thought system, because it is a deadly as a flask of botulinum.

Regards, andrea ♥

Read Full Post »

Dear nickmaestro,

Ummm, that entry from the horn ensemble at 3:10. It always knocks me out, since I heard this piece when I was 18 and falling hopelessly in love with someone rather unsuitable.

It’s like a pack of prowling lionesses, pacing then running, making the smiles across their jaws ever broader, and exhibiting more and more their beautiful but lethal teeth.

It is the very tincture of the extract of the distillation of the quintessence of leonine agility and power.

♥ andrea

Read Full Post »


You cannot stop flaming people’s beliefs if that take a stance that tarnishes another’s beliefs such as promoting anti-theism. I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in a god, but I don’t go around telling other to believe in the same stuff I believe.

I rather have people having their own personal, individual religion. That way they are free from society and can make a conscious and philosophical journey in knowing what are truly their own beliefs.

The most corrupt thing about religion is society.

Anti-theism is a form of prejudice. Saying “Damn to all believers of god,” isn’t much different than when you go to one of those ceremony shit things at a church and they say “damn to all non-believers.”

You cannot very well defend your own beliefs and distinguish them from another if you exercise them in a means that offends others.

Better to re-examine your beliefs and to try to live in harmony with others regardless of what you believe. And fyi, I don’t believe in god.

Sign boarding is not freedom of speech. It is freedom of press or expression.

Having a sign that says “Imagine no Religion” can be interpreted the same as it saying “Imagine no Atheism.”

As an atheist I would find that rather distasteful. And the American Constitution does not state that the freedom of speech is a paramount right. The constitutional founders didn’t intend it to be designed that way and there are no laws that really enforce that amendment.


Dear Tom101229, I don’t think so.

Firstly, the Constitution does not require “laws” for its enforcement. It is the framework within which Federal law is judged. Ditto the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the14th Amndmnt.

Second, I seem to remember a case called “Brandenburg v. Ohio”

“…constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is (i) directed to inciting or producing (ii) imminent lawless action, and (iii) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Personally, I prefer Black and Douglas’ sensible and literalist interpretation of the 1st Amndmnt. “No law” should mean Congress cannot use police powers to regulate any speach, no matter what interests might (supposedly) be served by regulating such speech.

Regards, andrea (ex law reporter at the Royal Courts of Justice in Britland)


Once again I submit you are wrong. On three counts.

First, the public sphere is a marketplace of ideas, not a realm for dainty deference to each others beliefs. Only by robust exchange, including mockery and ridicule, are daft ideas (ie most of the content of religion) exposed as such. To be politely silent in the face of stupidity is per se wrong.

Second, anti-theism (fancy term for the assertion of the truth of atheism) is not prejudice, as has been said many times ….. It is the absence of irrational belief in a deity.

De facto, you assign parity of rationality to contradictory positions, one of which must be false. Your position is thus irrational.

Thirdly, religious beliefs are thought systems that, by and large, are “group-think”. Believers demand adherence from other people. Hence expecting religion, especially Abrahamic monotheism, to stay private, is like expecting lighted matches and gasoline to stay inert when mixed.

Regards, ♥ andrea


I will never condone nor allow people to speak about something they know nothing about. Homosexuality, Religion, Rights, War, Justice, Peace, Right and Wrong, and Freedom, what are these but illusions of what our feeble minds have sought to create to excuse our own activities?

Except we don’t know what freedom is and by allowing stupid pathetic animals that kill themselves with their stupidity to exercise something they have no comprehension about (Freedom), which is a made-up word with no meaning as far as I’m concerned or simply an excuse to allow any action to take place, a means of which the ego can do as it wishes without reason nor just cause, we are simply condoning the activities that have allowed suffering and conflict to occur in the first place.

Just call me Tom, less of a hassle.

First, the constitution requires executive action for its enforcement. Executive action requires funds, which comes from Congress.

Second, Legalese is a poor construct language full of so much wordiness. No one understand it and it is just rubbish to make people who hear it or see it stop in their tracks and try to spend, wasting their time trying to understand it, which allows a rival to have an upper hand as their opponent is stunned. Give it a rest.

Would you please stop being so wordy.



I’ll try, no promises. Those reporter habits die hard, as do the inclinations of an analytical philosopher.

Wordy precision may not be beautiful, but it’s better than nothing.

Watched your vid “How to avoid corrupt or vicious users on youtube”.

I went for a shower to pause for thought before replying 😉

You have quite an old fashioned attitude to reputation. No such thing exists on YT 😉

How about a Mozart violin concerto as background music?

Kind regards, andrea ♥

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »