The Baystate Objectivist

The Baystate Objectivist

Saturday, May 19, 2012


Ms. Maddow in the window.

We have lots of people like this around here.

We also have lots of people who don't see the irony of putting that sticker on something with an internal combustion engine. This was bike week, and there was a little gathering to celebrate at the old courthouse.

The new Mayor of Northampton was there. My sense is that even his critics are pleasantly surprised by the job he's done so far.

Here's a ride you don't see on the road very often.

Here's what it looks like inside.

Someone rode this bike to UMass.

Has 1976 become a date so long ago in the ancient past that businesses use it to boast of their longevity?

I had some very big fun in 1976.

Here are some scenes from a Northampton tag sale.


Anonymous said...

I like the Vid of the Cows Tag sale better. Only in the N. East are there "Tag Sales, Selectmen, and Grinders" (that you can eat!)
All are unknown in the rest of the U.S.A. said...

you, sir, are a brilliant genius.

Anonymous said...

Maddow is such a tool. The old "we don't vote on rights" trope.

First of all, that's nowhere in the Constitution. As far as I can determine that's a talking point spawned somewhere about 2006 when the homosexual movement decided that if questions such as same sex marriage were ever put to the people they would lose, so they must never be put to the people. Just cancel voting and declare themselves the winners!

Second, all of the rights we have in our Constitution are there because we voted on them. Now I know that they're supposed to be from God and all of that--Natural Law--but the point is that if they hadn't been debated, voted on, then sent to the states to be voted on again, they wouldn't appear in the Constitution.

Finally, this "we don't vote on rights" nonsense only makes sense if you already believe it. So, for example, Maddow believes that we can't vote on same sex marriage because it's her "right". I disagree. If she could show me where in the Constitution it say anything about marriage, or where it says that a marriage consists of two people of any sex, she might have a point. But I'm not convinced. So her arrogant presumption that she will silence me and deny me my franchise just seems like a hunk of crap.

There are a number of civil rights issues that she would clearly contest. If I told her that we have to stop killing the unborn and we can't vote on it because it's a civil right, she would surely balk. "That's not a civil rights issue!"

So we disagree about what is and what is not a civil rights issue but one side (hers) gets to decide what we can and can't vote on it.

Shove it, Maddow. You don't get to decide what the rest of us can vote on it, you pushy, arrogant, slimeball.


Anonymous said...

It's right to vote on rights by Dan Flynn. Wonderful.


Anonymous said...

I really think Rachel Maddow was just voicing her opinion, not "deciding on what the rest of us can vote on." She's simply a TV commentator, not a judge or anything of the kind.

Sounds as if you have a much deeper set of issues with Maddow, for whatever reason. Jealous, much?

(BTW, "homosexual" went out of popular usage about 30-40 years ago. Guess you must call African-Americans Negroes, too.)

Tim said...

Gotta ask. Is that car a work of art? I think so. Its a beautiful thing to look at. Get any special thrill looking at a Prius? Boy there's "progress" for you.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Trish...

Anonymous said...

Rachel rules!