Thanks for the cigarette and my but isn't that blindfold rather ironic?

I'm I was in the dock!

The charge is was "siding with the state's thought control in the Ron Paul newsletter affair."

I find the charge interesting, given that the state per se hasn't weighed in on said affair, and that what I actually seem to stand have stood accused of is criticizing a personification of the state -- a member of the US House of Representatives, no less.

No doubt about the verdict [update: Had the court not adjourned back into the ether from whence it came], of course -- the self-appointed prosecutor, judge and jury is a devotee of the theory that the act of disagreeing with him constitutes irrefutable proof of his correctness. [1]

Dead man walking! Dead man walking here! Or maybe not.

1. Yes, that's a Hoppe-baiting oversimplification. Rather than try to explain "Argumentation Ethics," I'll defer to Kinsella himself, who identifies and links to the relevant sources in his defense of it.