The real damage done by Mr. Hyer

With the arrest of Joe Hyer, and his subsequent admission of guilt today there is a proliferation of pontificating, proselytizing and politicizing in town and in the blogosphere.

However, the important issue is not the motivation of any “informant”, the political intentions of the sheriff and prosecutor, nor the potential damage to Joe Hyer's political ambitions or career. The real issues are the sustained damage to the fragile relationship between voters and our elected civic leaders and the violation and loss of expectations and trust.

Our community's stability depends not on the veneration of our elected officials but on the bond that develops when citizens give support to other citizens to represent and act on their civic interests. This lamentable situation, like so many others involving political leaders, undermines that special relationship and jeopardizes the commitment and hope of creating a more respected government and prosperous community. It's the voters and the community who suffer from the incredible lack of judgment of a person who had been a respected political figure.

When a public official makes many contributions to his/her community and brings intelligence and foresight to public debates the situation may be emotionally harder but no more ethically complex.

A criminal violation is the ultimate act of selfishness in that one’s lack of discipline and self control results in the chasm that already exists between the public and their representatives growing even larger.

It should not be lost that for progressives who believe in a vibrant and active government, who will not see many electoral or policy successes without INCREASED public trust and confidence in their government, suffer perhaps the greatest impact from the damage done by another failed public official. Conservatives actually work to achieve reduced trust and confidence in our public institutions.

“Public trust is built on an assumption that public officials, and respected public figures, can be believed — that you can trust that they are who they say they are,” said Rev. Gary Dorrien, a professor of social ethics at Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan in yesterday’s NY Times. “When public figures are revealed to be other than who they claimed — and follow up with apologies that betray them as having immature personalities, unfamiliar with the rigors of honest self-assessment — the fabric of social trust suffers, he said. But incrementally, the accumulation of little tears in the fabric “makes it harder and harder to talk about the ethical underpinning of any public policy issues, harder to mobilize people,” Mr. Dorrien said. My name is Russ Lehman



Simple point. Joe would not have "broken the public's trust", he would not be at risk of losing his job because of the threat of a felony conviction, and there would be ZERO room for arguing a politically motivated attack had he NOT sold marijuana to his close friends, had he NOT grown marijuana in his home. The man took an oath of office to uphold certain laws, if he didn't feel he could do it, then he should have not taken the office. He knew what his actions could bring him. He is an articulate, adult who should have a sense of accountability. Anything less than that denies him the most essential of human characteristics and that is the ability to see how your actions fit within the society you live in.

re: "civil disobedience" ???

not to derail the subject of this post, but I just can't let fly by the idea that Roeder's murderous rampage is an example--abeit hyperbolic and framed to make a point--of "true civil disobedience" that "involves openly protesting a law and possibly risking one’s freedom by publically violating the current law – in an effort to change it." Really? Killing a doctor who performs LEGAL medical procedures that he doesn't happen to agree with is "true civil disobedience" as long as he explains his (warped) reasoning openly (and proudly) and faces the legal consequences? Really? Would you like to step back from that cliff, now???

C'mon folks

We are talking about a felony here. Would it be more dangerous if he was drinking and driving, or ran a red light? Probably. Are either of those felony charges? No.

It would be fun, and I would be a little bit happier in life if I could own a silencer for one of my firearms. Do I need one? No. But it would never harm anyone (I own a great safe) and it would be for "recreational use" only. I think it is very silly that they are illegal. Why don't I own one? Because I would go to prison if I was caught using one, even if it was some target shooting with friends.

Now, if a public figure were caught in this state with a silencer would you show him/her as much respect as you are showing Joe? I wouldn't. I know a cop who was "fired" for being caught smoking pot. If you know the rules, and know the punishment, why would you even chance it?

What this has shown me, is that Joe has some terrible priorities, and that his being an elected official within our society, is not nearly as important as getting high and helping others achieve that state of being.


Murderers of abortion doctors. Good lord people. Hyperbole much?

The political motivation of

The political motivation of the informant is the only interesting part of this whole situation! This "damage to the fragile relationship" between voters and office holders is pretty meaningless, at least where I am concerned: Sure, I think Joe Hyer was stupid to sell pot to a two-faced, black-hearted weasal, but I didn't like Joe Hyer that much to begin with. Trust, shmust. I lost trust a while ago, even before a bunch of local politicians who took campaign contributions from a developers pretended that they were representing the interests of some imaginary silent majority. It's not like our local offices have been been occupied by some dude from Father Knows Best up till now, anyway. I was cynical before Joe Hyer got arrested.  The rest of you weren't?

I understand that because of a vast cultural gulf, there are some people in this community who envision anyone who sells any sort of illegal substance, ever, as being as dastardly as a child molester, a Nazi dictator, and a Simon Legre, all rolled into one.  Maybe they don't know anybody who smokes pot casually, and sells it casually when a friend is short.  It's kind of interesting, in a way.  But for many of us, we know people for whom that's an acceptable behavior, just a stoner friend helping out a stoner friend, not some sort of predatory act of corrupting another person.  This way of viewing anyone who has sold a few crumbs of pot as an immoral monster is just an artifact of our different ways of thinking about things, kind of like the weirdness of Teabaggers thinking of "Obamacare" as socialized medicine.  It's a stupid, histrionic misperception, but kind of understandable given the context and a steady diet of Fox News. 

But the informant is actually interesting!  Who was this person who was sufficiently compartmentalized that they could pretend to be a friend to a person they were coldly planning to ruin publicly?  Or perhaps the better question is what is this person?  What is he hoping to gain?  Why is he willing to alienate the large segment of the population who will revile him once they learn his identity?  Why is he willing to damage the fragile relationship of trust between himself, and everyone else in the world?  Does he think he won't be found out eventually, that he won't have to pay that price?  Is he planning on leaving Olympia anyway?  And how does it feel, to cause so much pain, not just to an individual who regarded him as a friend, but to our community? 

Quite a drama we've got going on here, and it's not over yet!

Double post




If I am elected

Citizens, if I am elected I promise you a conspiracy in every pot and a pot in every chicken.

Civil Disobediance eh? When you get that plastic tray full of gruel shoved through that little door within a door, you can contemplate your fate for disobeying laws that were created for the greater good.

Does your indeference and contempt of the law come from your own rationalization that what you do is harmless? Keep bringing up alcohol and cigarettes. We all know that two wrongs dont make a right but that three do.

Where have all the cowboys gone?

Quit smokin' that weed boy. It'll make you defecate.

my art teacher in Jr. High was dosed...

...with LSD one day in class (and no, I didn't do it)...he tripped hard and it was lame for everyone...I wished someone had just slipped him a pot brownie instead.

Moderation is key, and I find nothing wrong with herb. I agree that smoking is bad and think that tolerance is key.


The Real Damage Done by Unjust Drug Laws

I can't help but think that the real damage is done by farcical drug laws.

Poor comparison, I admit. I

Poor comparison, I admit. I really couldn't come up with better at the time. Personally I find pot more offensive than silencers though, just so you know.


depends on the incident. There are felony DUI's.

Bravo Downtowner


Okay, I give up

It's late (sorta), what is "nt"?


your premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong, and many things right, about pot.

nt = no text

nt (couldn't resist =)


Nothing wrong?

Is that your opinion or medical fact?

I suppose there is nothing wrong with cigarettes either? Alcohol?

Joe obviously didn't know his buyer very well. How did Joe know if the pot wasn't going to be used very nasty purposes? Maybe he was going to turn around and sell this to some kids.

I am a Luddite of culture

Sort of. OK, I think this is a picture from South Park, what is the contection to nt/no text? You almost had me at nt.

My opinion

based on years of experience and the long list of accomplished pot smokers.

There is no connection with South Park

that's a Non Sequitur...or "ns."

Do you know anything about the "nasty purposes?"

What have I been missing?

I'm sure you didn't miss

I'm sure you didn't miss it, you probably just didn't think it was all that bad

Apparently some people find getting your very young child high and/or pet, pretty funny. I was also at a high school party where someone thought it would be hilarious to bake some pot into the brownies. Pretty nasty stuff.

"I didn't think it was all that bad"

I don't mind child abuse? It that what you're suggesting, you frigging asshole? Screw yourself, Norm. Let's pretend we don't exist. That would be best for Olyblog.

That's not what I was going

That's not what I was going for actually. I should have read through it before I posted it. What I meant was more along the lines of "Not big news" etc. I wasn't going for any insult personal or otherwise. I apologize.

Oh, nevermind

No Text

Pot is no different

Than alcohol, cigs, sugar, cola, caffine, and a lot more (even chocolate), in that they all should be used judiciously, AND kept away from, (or limited) the developing young bodies of kids. They can all be abused, they can all be used well. Gee, maybe someone is going to turn around an sell the liquor they just bought at the state store to a minor, or some cigs., but somehow that never raises the hackles like talkin' 'bout pot. P.S. They'll get my chocolate when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

yeah and no

Which corporation owns pot? Nestle? Hersey? What chemicals are used to process/refine pot? It is a f'n flower you dry...can't get any more clear than that-

-all that stuff 'bout kids stands, no disconnect there.

And yes, good direct-trade/fair market choc/cacao is example of how an organic can be done right.


The same could be said for

The same could be said for many things. Many illegal drugs have a medicinal purpose. I am not a big fan of alcohol or sugar (corn syrup) but the cat is out of the bag already. I have seen some drunk people do some pretty dumb things. I have seen some high on pot people do some dumb things. I haven't seen many people make bad decisions while high on chocolate though. If we are talking dangers to decision making I think chocolate is a little low on the offender list. My next one night stand i am going to try blaming it on the m&m's. ;)


By the way, the stupid things people do when over-indulging, well, we'd be a whole lot better off with the stoned than the drunk. As it has been pointed out, given the choice, police would rather deal with a crowd of stoners than a crowd of drunks. 1990's-I'm in group working in Alaska, we go to one of the popular bars. Lots of people mingling, socializin'. I have enough to get tipsy, that's my limit. I play really bad pool. Some guys get drunker than others. Words are used. Egos start flaring. Fights are stopped. Then, it's closing time. Less than five minutes after I and some of our group leave, the other two walk out only to be met by one of the angry drunks. Pissed about something. Really evil, drunk pissed. Stupid, brain-siezing rage. The kind of anger that alcohol brings to the surface, as it so often has. This guy though has a knife and strength and stabs one of my co-workers to death, not even the one who had words with him. But for a few minutes time, I could have been the one he nailed. The next day the local paper, in the usual effort to scare the populace by misinforming them declared "Drugs are thought to be involved." The whole plant worked a day to help support his two kids. Oh, would that it had been pot.

Definitely not the kind of

Definitely not the kind of thing that happens with pot. It is kind of strange how, with respect to public perception, "drugs" have this evil aura, and alcohol just has a friendly glow.

Chocobot Power Hour

I know many folks who have geeked on too much chocolate, young and old.


PS: someone please let me know if there is a better link to the Simpsons epi that had the Mattel & Mars Bar Quick Energy Chocobot Hour gag




Another like

That's basically my take on the whole thing too.


The Cannabis Defense Coalition has taken out a photo classified in tomorrow's Olympian in an attempt to publicly indentify the informant.

You may view (download, redistribute, post, mass-mail) the poster associated with the CDCs campaign.

thank you

Smart move.


Thanks for This

Interesting analysis... I hadn't heard that Mr. Hyer admitted guilt today. Nor have I been following elsewhere the discussion in the blogosphere, though I have talked about this issue with a few people. I agree that it is unfortunate that Mr. Hyer would take a risk like this.

That said, I take issue with some of the assertions made here. I do think it's a big deal that the County Sheriff and Prosecutor are Republicans (by the way - these positions, like that of the auditor, should NOT be partisan in my opinion.)

There are a lot of questions to ask. And yes, I wish it would work for Joe to just apologize, promise to make amends, and that the county would then drop charges and let us move on.

I also think the issue of unjust drug laws are important here, tantamount really, to this discussion. While I think it is irresponsible and unwise for a person in elected office to so flagrantly violate a law regulating a controlled substance, I think there is an argument to be made along the lines of necessity defense.

For example, while the drug issue clearly has differences, I think elected officials would be justified in their participation in anti-war civil resistance by their duty to uphold higher laws (laws against Agression v. traffic laws.)

Many people use cannabis in a way that is responsible and social, recreational, and even therapeutic.

Cannabis should not be illegal. That cannabis is illegal, while alcohol and tobacco are not, is a real injustice.

The unjust nature of our drug laws is also an important issue to many people when considering the recent events surrounding Mr. Hyer's arrest.


Why should the Sheriff NOT be partisan. I ask this in all honesty. I see prosecutor, as well as auditor because of their function. But to me the Sheriff is a bit different. They have major oversight over the departments budget and policy rather than really executing the function of the office in the same manner as the prosecutor and auditor. I do know in some areas the Sheriff is non-partisan, but I can honestly see both sides of the coin on arguing for and against this position being partisan. I digress, carry on...

I disagree

I disagree with the idea that unjust drug laws tantamount here. It neuters any realistic conversation about the personal accountability of an elected official. It flies in the face of the oath (which I should say is seen as a legal agreement) that the elected official takes when entering office to uphold the laws, rules, and regulations of their constituency, and really shifts the conversation away from responsibility.

I agree that the law should not exist, and I do not believe it is just. I have also stated in early blogs why I do not agree that selling is always a "victimless crime." However I think this conversation should be entertained, on a whole in a more healthy manner, separate from Joes predicament. Simply, because the personal ethics and morals of a private citizen and an elected official by nature, and by legal statute are very different.

For instance there are some (not alot these days) jobs that a private citizen can have and take a felony conviction and maintain if they receive only community release, or probation. This is not the case with Washington state elected officials.

Truth is, to make this a debate about the morality and justice in current drug laws only limits the discussion in a way that is short sided to the myriad of issues involved in this case.

I will, before you go there, also state that the same would be true with acts of civil disobedience by a public official. While it may be morally justifiable and admirable to some, it takes away the personal accountability of the office in which the individual holds and would break down a level of trust and confidence between the elected individual and constituents.

The simple fact is, that not everyone who votes for an elected official has the same personal politics as you, me, or anyone else, and the official is responsible to his/her office as well as constituents.

I fully agree..

More sage wisdom from Noradarno...and WhoCares.

whether he admitted guilt

The probable cause statement submitted by the prosecutor states that Mr. Hyer told the police at the time of his arrest that he sold marijuana but only to friends. I'm not sure if that's the "admission of guilt" being referred to above. It's not a guilty plea.


good grief!


Admission is a bit strong. All we have is a paraphrasing of what he said according to the police. I'm not saying it looks good for him, but assuming those were his actual words is premature. What did say may or may not be so cut and dry.


I just read Jeremy's article in today's paper more carefully.

By Russ's logic

If one of our elected representatives has a poor driving record, which in fact is a greater threat to society than smoking and selling pot, they are unfit for service.


On the subject of politics in this mess

The Olympian has at least a dozen file photos of Councilman Hyer but the ones they run repeatedly is of last fall's city council swearing in ceremony. In the photo Councilman Buxbaum and councilwoman Roe, both of whom are Isthmus opponents, stand next to Councilman Hyer. Co-incidence? Yeah, right. I know my semiotics. Implied guilt by association.

A Vast Conspiracy!


No conspiracy Mr. Stroble

Just Mike Oakland and his staff using the tools available to them to promote Mike's (and your) sincere belief that Larida Passage would be good for our community by any means necessary.

By any means?

You mean, by any means afforded under the First Amendment, right?

Of course

I have a hard time imagine Mr. Oakland peeking out of his window with an M-1 carbine in hand. Then again, I'm confident there are sides to Mr. Oakland I am not familiar with.

If you met Mr. Oakland

If you met and got to know Mr. Oakland, I am confident that you would like him even more than you like me, friend.

I bet I would like Mike Oakland

but over the years I've learned I can like many people with whom I disagree with, present company included.

Subtle snark aside, you do touch on an important issue here Peter. Things go better when a person doesn't make the political personal. 

Bias and conspiracy are

Bias and conspiracy are hardly the same thing.

Political Motivation

Although I agree the public trust has been shaken, I think we are at great risk in this community if we do not uncover the underlying political motivation.

The Sheriff is a Democrat. I believe the prosecutor is also. That said, the democratic party in this county is fractured beyond being functional. Just your average citizen, who suspected Joe of anything would not have gotten direct access to the Sheriff. They might have been asked to write a complaint. That most likely would have been forwarded to the jurisdiction where it belonged, Olympia. Anyone who says they follow up on every lead is naive and woefully unaware of how overworked they are. Whom ever this informant was had direct access to the Sheriff, which is a big deal. Just try to get direct access to Kimball, he can't be available for everyone in the County. So, the "informant" was most likely someone well known in political circles.

The isthmus issues are back on the talking table. Joes appointment, to the office of the treasurer was in the bag - and boom. His political career is over. Now, yes, Joe broke the law, but to ignore the glaring political slaughtering and not be deeply concerned about the motivations seems like voluntarily putting blinders on. I believe there are political fractions at work in our community that are willing to destroy the lives of public officials who do not bend at their will and do their bidding. Did Joe make it easy - maybe. Does that matter, not really.

For the sake every elected on the local level, sitting at home, wondering now, what they have to hide, who they have to be afraid of, what they may have done way back when that might make them vulnerable, I hope we uncover where this started. I want our leaders to be able to make honest, courageous decisions without fear of retribution. Things that lurk around in the dark, disguised like friends that betray aren't good for anyone. This is bad for political process.

People like Russ would make good candidates. However, people like Russ, who would make good candidates don't want to put their feet in those polluted waters. Why? Because it's well know the system is a mess - stuff like this makes good people very hesitant to want to lead. We may not want to talk about it in public, but behind closed doors, good people are saying no to public service because they don't want to be targeted and trashed, during a campaign or any other time.

As for Joe, he'll get his. He certainly is already. His entire life, past present and future is being played out in the comments section of a news paper that published his charging documents. He is already being prosecuted beyond what a "normal" citizen would have been in this situation. He will not be afforded any leniency by the prosecutor in an effort to avoid having the office appear biased, which in itself is bias.

How "vast" can you get in Oly? :)

I thought this thread is a good one. No matter how this thing shakes out, damage has been done to the trust with citizens, just when the community, I think, was in a process of healing after a divisive season.

It would be easy to see a politically motivated conspiracy, just because of some residual hard feelings. Also, we are still working through issues and frustration about the PROCESS of our city governance. If that was more inclusive and transparent it would reduce the emotional impact of any particular politician's personal situation. 

Then there is the overall polarity dance of national politics and two dominant philosophies of thought about governance which filters all the way down to who locals elect for dogcatcher.

I expect that one fallout from this situation is that we are going to realize what a busy guy Joe was and how many projects are going to be impacted by his absence.


Thanks for not ponitificating...

About the Hyer trust chasm. Personally, I don't trust Joe less in matters of public policy now than I did two weeks ago. But I understand how you and others might feel otherwise and that IS an indisputable and important outcome of this unfortunate episode.  Does that painfully obvious lesson mean that people should not wonder how or if local politics played a part in the arrest and its subsequent coverage?  Not sure why those perspectives are competitors.

By all means...

Wonder all you like. But, regardless of the existence of a possible right wing conspiracy here, the issue will remain the scandal and its effects on Joe's ability to do this Council job. The scandal is the scandal, not the snitching conspiracy. But, yes, please let us continue to wonder.

No one needs your permision to wonder

and you are perfectly free to focus solely on the scandal. How cool is that?

Well, obviously...

You can do what you like. I think it is, as Russ points out, a distraction from the real rammifications of this arrest.

Distraction from

the real rammifications? You mean we should be showing more a message to other politicians? That's the only practical reason to focus on rammifications that I can think of. And I'm guessing there will be no shortage of that in our community.

I wouldn't. ..

Want to suggest you should be showing anything. I would just be repeating myself, but, no, not as a message to other politcians. Please continue as you were.

Oh, no. Please do.

If you have any practical reasons why a few people being distracted from the rammifications is a problem, it would be helpful to know what they are. Personally, I am fully capable of holding the view that Hyer (if I take the report at face value) has undermined the public's trust in local politicians WHILE also wondering if politics played a role in the enforcement. Not sure how the world would be any different if I avoided thinking about the latter. But apparently, it's a serious problem in theory.

I thought you were worried about...

'Pontification on the trust chasm' on this channel as somehow a threat to people's 'wondering'. No, I think my offering up reasons to you would be non-productive exercise here. Let's just say I think most of us should be looking for Lindsey Baum instead of Bohemian Grove. And you're correct in that we could do both things at the same time. I don't know if it is a serious problem in your theory. Could be it's merely irrelevant, but that's just my wonderings. Hard to say... Gug, you are a character.

Obfuscate and conflate to your heart's desire.

None of that will explain why "a distraction from the real rammifications of this arrest" has any practical meaning. Good day, Sir.

Good day to you, Sir...

I said, good day!

Oh Fes, don't be like that


Isn't this cute

Locutus has a playground crush on Gug.

now now,

No need to bring on the nasty. You can play nice if you try. I'm sure of it.

This is only a scandal

because some folks are calling is one. If Councilman Hyer has been caught embezzling money, cheating on his taxes, or dare I say taking thousands of dollars from a developer for amendments to land use ordinance, that would be a scandal. Regardless of the political repercussions, what this is is another exercise in the idiocy of marijuana prohibition.

Oh yeah,

No scandal here....nope.


if that is your real name*, you are making my point. Looking back up the thread it is you that injected the word scandal and now you run with it. Now either you are playing a Dada game or you just don't see it.


*attempt at humor.

yep, real name...

Emphasis on the "cute" part.

Not that it matters

Are you a TNG fan?


You, Cheers?

Yep, been awhile though


Re: the admission of guilt

Re: the admission of guilt

Assuming the paper, and the police, and court records are telling the truth (which I do) Mr. Hyer “… told detectives after his arrest ‘that he did sell marijuana but only to his close friends’”. The law doesn’t differentiate between “friends” and others. While not an admission of guilt in a legal forum it certainly was an admission nonetheless

Re: the alleged political motivations of the informant, police or prosecutor

I don’t believe the police or the prosecutor wanted this case. When the Clinton justice department brought the anti-trust case against Microsoft they had to be brought to the case kicking and screaming by Silicon Valley lawyers who made the case for them. I do agree with those who criticize the justice system for often NOT bringing cases against those in power. It would be dishonest to then also criticize them for actually then bringing such a prosecution.

Re: the “justness” of pot laws

Three weeks ago Scott Roeder, an abortion opponent, was convicted in 37 minutes of first-degree murder in the death of George R. Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country to perform late-term abortions. While he admitted in court to shooting Dr. Tiller he claimed he felt it was the only way that he could halt the deaths of babies, and protest an unjust law. Is it your position that he was justified? True civil disobedience involves openly protesting a law and possibly risking one’s freedom by publically violating the current law – in an effort to change it. In this case has the criminal defendant, to my knowledge has made no effort at all at claiming an unjust law or changing the current law.

Re: the vast right wing (or any other) conspiracy

There clearly is a network of right wing activists who collaborate in furtherance of their goals. To see a conspiracy everywhere however, and to always claim it as some sort of defense leads only to the distillation of the real claims and difficulty, if not impossibility of fighting it where it really exists.

With all this said, the main pouint is still the damage done to public trust in our elected officials and institutions.

Russ Lehman

Russ Lehman


Great job

Re: the Justness of Pot Laws

The alleged fact that Mr. Hyer admitted to selling pot makes this case much more in light with the concept of civil disobedience - which involves the open and honest disobeying of an unjust law.

How an anti-abortionist's murder of an abortion provider relates to this escapes my grasp. Is Mr. Hyer accused of murder?

I very much look forward to learning the identity of the supposed "friend" who, according to the story in the newspaper, on two separate occasions, used a recording device to document the sale and purchase of marijuana.

These laws are unjust. If the drug laws were just and fair, then none of this would be happening. Mr. Hyer would be free to continue his political career.

These laws are unjust. These laws are based in lies and racism. There is no good reason for cannabis to be illegal, and that certainly must play into the community's handling of this issue.

This is not a case of civil disobendience..not even close.

If it was, Mr. Hyer would have sold the pot in the light of day and he would admit to everyone that he did so in protest. He fails to fulfill your own requirements: open and honest disobedience. Whether or not our drug laws are just will not redeem Hyer in the eyes of those who obey those laws anyway...and there are many. One could wish it were not so, I suppose. It's not fair, I suppose. While I share your interest in understanding how these charges came about, none of that will change what is described in the police report (which, if taken at face value, seems pretty damning). Perhaps that’s what Russ is getting at here, that we should at least acknowledge the damage done.

I dunno gug

I think there is an argument to be made for quiet, personal Civil Disobedience. Think gay men in Texas before sodomy laws were overturned.

I'm reminded of a snatch of Lyric by Eugene Chadbourne.

Broke the Law for breakfast

Break it again at lunch

Some friends are comin over to break the law a bunch

You better hope and pray

We break the law everyday

I don't agree, but let's say I do...

then what? Everyone will suddenly change their opinion about the arrest and the report will be revized to say "engaged in a brave act of civil disobedience" instead of "sold marijuana?" I don't think so.

I'm making a minor point here

I am on board with your position there is no CD defense for Councilman Hyer.

What I am saying is related to my new meme of those who govern are not leaders but our representatives. With rare exceptions, the laws that are enacted and enforced in our representative democracy are nothing more than the codification of the current political economy so the only effective way to change an unjust law is to change the underlying culture first. The Law follows, not leads.

This is a newish notion for me so I'm open to some clear eyed correction from my AEP Brother. (Thank you Sir, may I have another.)

It's heartening..

To hear you finally come around on this.

So, you're just here to poke people with sitcks?



I have no sticks for poking. You? Nope, i'm just not understanding you.

Nah. He's just here to demonstrate

the importance of grace and social and emotional reciprocity in promoting healthy human relationships and community.


At least one of us is here for that. I guess that's better than nothing. It would be a better world if we were all more like me...apparently.