|
|
|
|
Friday, November 6, 2009
Defeating Libertarian Logic
by Simon You have met them. Those oh so logical Libertarians where every acceptable thought has to be a verified part of a system. They have to tie themselves in logical knots to come to the proper logical conclusion. Ralph has a few words about that. adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Now that I'm a Republican I no longer have to compromise my logic to come to a predetermined conclusion. What a relief. Well any way - we are neural computers, not digital logic machines. Correlation machines not computing machines (generally). Our reasoning for the most part is different. Einstein didn't compute all the partial derivatives when he wanted to pick up a glass of water. And you can quote me on that. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 10:54 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
Female Shoots Jihadi
by Simon Yes indeed. A female police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, put an end to jihadi Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood. A female civilian police officer is being hailed as a hero in the aftermath of a gunman's rampage at Fort Hood -- an outbreak of violence that the officer is credited with ending by shooting the alleged gunman four times despite being shot herself.Yes it was. And I'm sure it had to gall the jihadi to be taken down by one of our ladies. You don't mess with American women. Which reminds me of Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester who together with Sgt. Timothy F. Nein charged an ambush by at least 34 men in Iraq. The final count for the enemy was 27 dead, six wounded, and one captured. Don't f*** with our women you jihadi bastards. Because they will shoot your ass. And if you are sufficiently unlucky you will get bagged. Body bagged. I married a sturdy Midwest girl. She likes guns. A true credit to her gender. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 05:28 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Libertarian Republican Election News
by Simon Libertarian Republican has some excellent news for Constitutional Republicans. You know, small government, low spending. I'm just going to give short excerpts. Follow the links for details. Republicans sweep Westchester County, New York on Anti-Tax message Voters ousted Democratic supervisors in Yorktown and Lewisboro and elected GOP majorities in both towns, as they did in North Castle, North Salem and Somers. A 24-year-old Republican even cracked the all-Democratic Ossining Town Board.And what about that Libertarian thing? Democrat elected officials have become such a pariah in this heavily Blue New York City suburb that one Democrat even got beat by a Libertarian.Heh. And there is more. Libertarian "RINO" wins County Council seat in Erie, Pennsylvania. Total of 8 Libertarian Victories throughout PennsylvaniaLibertarian Republican goes on to discuss the other seven wins. Follow the link. Maybe this has something to do with my suggestion that Republicans need a rebranding campaign. And this time we really mean it. We are coming to get you elected bastards who think you are our masters. This is America you sons of bitches and the People Are The Masters. You are our servants. Get it mofos? I was listening to Song Of The Warrior when I wrote this. Can you tell? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Song Of The Warrior
by Simon Project Valour-IT helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Items supplied include: # Voice-controlled Laptops - Operated by speaking into a microphone or using other adaptive technologies, they allow the wounded to maintain connections with the rest of the world during recovery. Another place to donate: The Warrior Song For those of you who want to sing along: The Warrior Song lyrics H/T IMAO Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 01:19 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Madison versus Hoyer (with sources!)
by Eric From Veeshir (who has left so many helpful comments here that I treat an email from him like a homework assignment), my attention was directed to a perfect -- perfectly dreadful that is -- example of the contempt some of our highest elected officials have for the Constitution: James O'Connor, Burris's communications director, later told CNSNews.com that although the word "health" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, the senator was referring to the Preamble of the Constitution which says the following:The Preamble to the Constitution is introductory in nature, and has nothing to do with defining the limited powers which are granted to the federal government. While promoting the general welfare is a purpose, as is securing the blessings of liberty, the way these things are intended to be accomplished is by ensuring limitations on government which the Constitution spells out. But don't trust me. Here's what constitutional author James Madison had to say: If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)If anything can be done in the name of "promoting the General Welfare," then why bother enumerating the powers of the federal government? And why stress the government's limitations in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? As Walter Williams pointed out not long ago, Madison later added this: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."Ditto, Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Opined Veeshir, I know it's just Burris now, but it'll spread.Veeshir also linked this atrocity from Steny Hoyer [Hoyer] added that Congress has "broad authority" to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote "the general welfare."How do people like Hoyer get and stay elected? The man is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. And not just wrong, he's shockingly wrong. Either the man has no idea what the Constitution or federalism means or else he's a demagogue. Quite incidentally, in the course of looking up Madison quotes, I found another very specific warning from Madison, quoted by a reliable commenter to an Ed Morrissey post: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."While that purports to be a quote from Federalist #41, the words do not appear in the text of Federalist 41 that the commenter linked and claimed to be quoting! Nor could I find it in this version of Federalist 41. That does not mean that Madison didn't say it, though; only that it doesn't appear to be where it's proponents say it is. Sorry if I sound like a crank, but here's the problem. I loved reading the above purported quote from Madison, and I'd love nothing more than to be able to cite it, as it sounds as if it was specifically written to rebut the noxious position of Steny Hoyer. I hate to be a spoilsport, but if I am unable to find it at the source* provided, I really can't cite it in good faith. This should not be a game of stuffing words in your favorite founder's mouth and then citing them because you like them. Yet the above is all over the Internet, attributed to Federalist 41. Or else simply quoted without a source, as it is here. That prompted this very reasonable comment: Where is this quote from? When did he say/where did he write this?To which the "Editor, Liberty Quotes" replies, Madison is referring to a bill to subsidize cod fisherman introduced in the first year of the new CongressOK, so now it's a quote about a cod fishing bounty. But that's not Federalist 41. Instead, the quote is said to be taken from a book by Thomas James Norton, and the book is quoted here and here. That wasn't quite not quite good enough for me, because I was already burned by the Federalist 41 citation, so I looked further. Finally, I found the entire quote -- in the text of a House debate "On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties." Anyway, it's not Federalist 41, but I'm delighted to help do my part to save it from the fate of unsourced or badly sourced quotes. Why would anyone need to that, when what Madison did say in Federalist 41 is more than adequate to rebut Steny Hoyer? It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.It's been a bit of a chore, but the bottom line is that Steny Hoyer stands refuted. By constitutional author James Madison. (Not that a little thing like being refuted would matter to someone like that, but still...) * By the way, it's always a good idea to beware of unsourced Madison quotes, of which there are many floating about. The general rule has long been that the burden is on whoever does the quoting to come up with a verifiable source. Repetition on the Internet is not proof of anything. posted by Eric at 12:15 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Obamanomics 101
by Dave So, the true 10-year cost of Obamacare is... $1.8 trillion. A trillion in new taxes, $800B in new deficit spending (oh, excuse me, I mean "imaginary Medicare cuts that will never happen"). And the next ten years are going to be even worse. It's like 1938 all over again... posted by Dave at 10:40 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
America's dysfunctional relationship with radical Wahhabism
by Eric Linking my earlier post about the Fort Hood shooting, M. Simon quoted what I said about the shooter's imam: Hasan's imam Faizul Khan is no ordinary imam. He is on the Board of Directors of the ISNA, a radical Wahhabi outfit which "enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America's mosques.Such people and their murderous ideology are a huge problem in this country -- and the biggest reason is our friendship with -- and dependence on -- Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest sponsor of radical Wahhabism. I am sick to death of Saudi influence and creeping Wahhabism paid for with our petrodollars, and have been for years. Sometimes when I fill my tank I wonder whether it would be better to patronize only the companies that don't buy Saudi oil, but then I'd be giving the money to Hugo Chavez. Seriously, our dysfunctional relationship with the Saudis is so odious that after a massacre like yesterday's, I'm tempted to scream "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" Anyway, I am sure that Simon's reaction to what I said would be shared by a lot of people: The Whabists need to be expelled from America. Whether they are native born or foreign born.Under our Constitution, though, citizens cannot be expelled from America for their opinions. Not even citizens who agree with radical Wahhabism. I say this as someone who lived for years around the corner from a Saudi-funded madrassa. Much as I disliked having people who subscribed to this poison in my neighborhood, had any native born Americans among them been rounded up and deported I would have been right there on the front lines with the ACLU, because if one administration can round up Americans for being Wahhabists, what's to stop another from rounding them up for being "radical rightists"? Or infidels? However, if Americans belong to enemy organizations, they can be made to register as foreign agents and put under surveillance, just as Communist Party members once were. At the very least, it seems like a no-brainer they should not be given positions as officers in the military for God's sake. But that latter is up to the Commander in Chief, isn't it? Hmmm.... Perhaps someone should ask the president why the military he commands says no to gays and yes to radical Wahhabists. MORE: Ralph Peters excoriates the total inability of the president, the media, or military to call Hasan's act what it is -- terrorism -- and offers a grim prediction: I guarantee you that the Obama administration's non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.Read it all. And Ann Althouse wants to know how this man was allowed to become an Army psychiatrist: I want to know why what was wrong with Hasan was not detected? Was he given a pass because he was Muslim? Is there a fear of suspecting or offending Muslims in the military that keeps people who should see signs of dysfunction from acknowledging what they see or doing anything about it? On the other hand, if it really is the case that people in the military are harassing Muslims, that too should not be ignored. There should be rigorous equality for Muslims. It shouldn't even be necessary to point out what is obvious: Muslims in the military shouldn't experience special treatment either of a positive or a negative kind.Via Glenn Reynolds, who also links an NPR segment demonstrating that Hasan was no ordinary Muslim. He talked about how if you're a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.The fact that a nutcase like that was made a Major in the United States Army and entrusted to to deal with soldiers' mental problems ought to outrage people even if he hadn't committed mass murder. I'm with Ralph Peters on this one: Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption. MORE: ShrinkWrapped (who is a psychoanalyst) takes a critical look at the Islamic terrorist from from a psychiatric point of view, and warns that reacting in a P.C. manner only aggravates the situation: When the immediate reaction of Islamic spokesmen is to warn everyone of Islamophobia, they too are supporting the projection and externalization that is the hallmark of radical Islam and the "lone, psychiatrically deranged" paranoid.I'd also like to know whether Hasan fits the profile common to many young Muslims in Europe whose parents came to the West seeking better lives only to see their children indoctrinated by religious views more radical than what they'd left behind. Psychologist Dr. Helen asks a number of good questions: This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?I agree. posted by Eric at 09:24 AM | Comments (11)
| TrackBacks (0)
Libertarian Wins In Queens
by Simon It seems that a Libertarian can actually win in one of the most liberal areas of the country. New York City. Libertarian Dan Halloran wins City Council Seat in New York CityLet me explain it for my electorally challenged friends. Moderates decide elections. And any one running on a Libertarian Platform is definitely moderate compared to the core of the Republican Party. Frank replying to a commenter had a few cogent words on the subject. Sorry you missed my point so completely on the theocrat comment.Frank has a few more words on the subject and you should follow the link and read them. He is good. Damn good. Of course the fact that I agree with him doesn't hurt. Here is what I think should be done: Keep repeating "I'm against abortion but I believe reproduction is none of the government's business". The Palin strategy. Yes it is offensive to my pro-life friends. But keep in mind that in America elections are won among the least committed voters. So will it be smaller government and lower spending or Democrat Rule as far into the future as you can imagine? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 04:06 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Muslim Jihadist Infiltrators
by Simon Resist Net has this from Walid Shoebat a former jihadist. TO WHAT LEVEL IS US MILITARY, FBI, CIA, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY INFILTRATED W. MUSLIM JIHADISTS?First off. I'm one of the few, the proud, the Jews. Heh. Also US Navy. Yank them rods. (Nuke qualified a very long time ago) I have posting privileges at Muslims Against Sharia. So what do I think? We need to carefully differentiate between those Muslims who want to be Americans and those who don't. Eric at Classical Values has this to say about Hassan's imam: Hasan's imam Faizul Khan is no ordinary imam. He is on the Board of Directors of the ISNA, a radical Wahhabi outfit which "enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America's mosques."So that is one way to tell. The Whabists need to be expelled from America. Whether they are native born or foreign born. Radical Islam is not a religion. It is a traitorous political party masquerading as a religion and should be treated as such. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 03:05 AM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
Ayn Rand On The Middle East
by Simon More Ayn Rand videos. The above video is from 1979. Obviously well before our current dust ups in the Middle East. And don't forget her novels: Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 01:43 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0) Thursday, November 5, 2009
"the name tells us a lot"
by Eric That's what Shepard Smith on Fox News just said about the officer who is described as the primary gunman who killed 12 people and wounded 31 in a mass shooting at Fort Hood Texas. He is described as "a convert to Islam" and a major who was about to deploy to Iraq, and who was known to be upset about the fact that he was about to deploy. They are not giving out the name on Fox News, although they keep saying "We've been given a name" and "the name tells us a lot." This aroused my curiosity, so I checked around online. According to this news site, the shooter has been identified as Malik Nadal Hasan: Fort Hood, TX (WSYR-TV/ABC News) - Twelve people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting spree at a Texas military base by what officials believe was possibly carried out by an Army officer.Apparently there were two other suspects, so there seems to have been a plot. MORE: The dead suspect's name is all over the Internet, so I don't know why Fox is stalling in reporting it. Frankly, I'm not surprised. We live in a time when "mainstream" American Muslims support a violent, murderous advocate of a Sharia state in the United States (also a convert to Islam) and call him a "respected Imam" after a fatal shootout with the FBI. MORE: At 5:56 p.m. Shepard Smith explained that they will not release the suspect's name until the Pentagon confirms it. Suspects names have become more sensitive than ever, haven't they? AND MORE: As of 6:03 p.m., Fox News had confirmed the name from the Pentagon. It was Major Malik Nadal Hasan. I hope no one calls the murderous bastard a martyr, but they probably will. My opinion is that I hope he rots in hell. AFTERTHOUGHT: If Major Malik Nadal Hasan was a convert to Islam as is being reported, does that mean he originally had another name? If so, I assume that will be reported eventually, but these days I don't like to take anything for granted. Is it reasonable to speculate that a mass shooting of U.S. soldiers (apparently by multiple plotters) might have been, um, an act of war? MORE: Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of links, and says this: Note that early reports are usually wrong, but it sounds quite bad, and likely to have some sort of terror connection. But stay tuned.It certainly doesn't look like the act of a lone nut. AND MORE: Drudge has this picture up of Hasan.
He reportedly worked as an Army psychiatrist, who had accomplices. The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said.Still no confirmation on the report that he's a convert to Islam. There's also this: The CounterTerrorist Unit said they have "no word" yet on whether this incident was terrorism-related.People are entitled to know. Or are they? MORE: Regarding the ongoing mystery of the man's background, investigators say they're not clear on his religion or how and when he got his name (which strikes me as peculiar, for the Army would keep records on all officers): A source tells the CBS News investigates team that Hasan is a licensed psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md. He is a drug and rehab specialist who got his Virginia psychiatry license July 12, 2005. MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds (who notes than Hasan's degree is from Damascus University), Donald Sensing has this: As of now, the lead agency for the investigation would be US Army Criminal Investigation Command, know by its historic initials of CID, because the crimes took place on Army territory. Interagency cooperation with the FBI and ATF and state law enforcement agencies is already being done. If, however, the shootings are deemed to be terrorism (perhaps an Islamist connection), by federal law the FBI is the lead agency for all terrorism investigations.And according to a report I found here (which also confirms the Damascus University education), Hasan was born in Virginia to Jordanian parents. MORE: Gateway Pundit puts it simply: This was jihad.If it was, that would make it an act of war. And if this man was some sort of enemy agent, he should not have been in the Army in the first place. AND MORE: The latest reports are that Hasan is alive: Authorities said immediately after the shootings that they had killed the suspected shooter, but later in the evening they recanted and said that he was alive and in stable condition at a hospital, watched by a guard.I still hope he rots in hell, as soon as possible. (Assuming he did it, of course. He now becomes the alleged shooter.) MORE: In yet another (but more recent) version of the story, Hasan is now described as the only suspect in the case: The U.S. soldier accused of carrying out a mass killing at Fort Hood in Texas is still alive and in custody according to the U.S. military, with no other suspects.As to why they said there were other shooters, who knows? I think it's going to take some time to get the facts. MORE: Something does not make sense. There still persistent reports that the man converted to Islam. According to the Huffington Post, "late in life": Arab and Muslim political groups are bracing themselves for a wave of anger and attacks after news broke on Thursday that the primary suspect behind the shooting deaths of twelve soldiers at Fort Hood had a Arabic and/or Muslim-sounding name.Then there's this: Everyone agrees that Major Hasan was Muslim. Most say that he was a recent convert, but his cousin says that he had been a Muslim all his life.If a Colonel knew that Hasan had expressed sympathy with the shooter at the recruiting office, why didn't he speak up? Something does not make sense about the man being a "recent convert," because if he was born with a Muslim name to Muslim parents, he is presumably Muslim from birth. Unless "recent convert" means he was a recent convert to a radical form of Islamic fundamentalism.
Colonel Lee (who knew him) asks, "Why was he transferred to Fort Hood?" I have to ask a question. Why the hell was he allowed to be in the Army? And why did they say he was dead? I'm beginning to smell something fishy about the whole thing. MORE: From Allahpundit, some great questions: The $64,000 questions: What was he doing at Fort Hood among the population if he thought suicide bombers were heroes? And why are the feds tipping the AP about this if they haven't even confirmed that he was the author yet?And, So here's where we are right now, near 11 p.m. ET. This guy raged about Muslims standing up to aggressors, praised suicide bombers, and the lead theory in the media is ... PTSD? For a guy who's ... never been deployed? A friend just e-mailed me with a good question: Even if he was suffering from some type of trauma from listening to vets' war stories, shouldn't a shrink trained in dealing with trauma been able to diagnose himself and seek treatment?PTSD is about as lame an explanation as you can get. If this guy had PTSD, then so did Mohammad Atta, and so does Osama bin Laden. And Timothy McVeigh. And I'm sure Stalin and Hitler did too. Since when do we put incidental psychological factors ahead of primary motivations? MORE: Also from Allahpundit, there's this from NPR: A source tells NPR's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.And the Army promoted this religious nut to Major? Alllahpundit also reports this: I'm hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? Or is this a bad lead? Smells fishy to me but multiple people have mentioned it.A lot of things smell fishy. I think there's a lot of disinformation floating around and there's sure to be more. MORE: Amidst the rest of the chaotic reporting, I found a report that according to his imam, Hasan considered himself to be a Palestinian: At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.Well, considering the reports that his parents are Jordanians, and the fact that many Jordanians are in fact displaced Palestinians, it is entirely possible that his parents were Palestinians. If Hasan's parents were Palestinians (or descended from Palestinians), wouldn't that make Hasan a Palestinian according to the commonly accepted definition of that term as it is used in virtually every Arab and Muslim country in the world, as well as many other countries? Here's the Wiki definition: In its common usage today, the term "Palestinian" refers to a person whose ancestors had lived in the territory corresponding to British Mandate Palestine for some length of time prior to 1948.Are we to believe that Hasan's imam's definition of Palestinian as someone "born in Palestine" is different from that of the rest of the Muslim world as well as Wikipedia? Or is there something fishy going on here too? MORE: Hasan's imam Faizul Khan is no ordinary imam. He is on the Board of Directors of the ISNA, a radical Wahhabi outfit which "enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America's mosques." AND MORE (This is now November 6): According to the base commander at Fort Hood, Hasan yelled "ALLAHHU AKBAR!" when he started shooting. That sounds like Jihad to me. The only question in my mind is whether this was part of a larger plot. But I expect to see a lot of denial. posted by Eric at 05:44 PM | Comments (12)
| TrackBacks (0)
Barack Obama, top Republican strategist!
by Eric Via Glenn Reynolds, my attention was drawn to an irresistibly funny comment left here: Dear Barack, Please continue to campaign for Democratic candidates in future elections. The Republicans welcome all your help. Thank you.He was quite effective, wasn't he? Nothing wrong with giving credit where credit is due. posted by Eric at 04:49 PM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Republicans Need A Branding Campaign
by Simon
Heh. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 12:47 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
The Abortion Litmus Test
by Simon It looks like Sarah Palin may not be able to pass the Republican Abortion Litmus Test. This is a report from March of 2009. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) recently appointed Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen, who once served on the board of Planned Parenthood, to the state's Supreme Court, the AP/Anchorage Daily News reports. According to the AP/Daily News, Palin's selection went against the advice of the Alaska Family Council -- a conservative group that opposes abortion rights -- who said that Christen was the more liberal of the governor's two choices for the vacant position. The two candidates were recommended by the Alaska Judicial Council, an independent citizen's commission that evaluates judicial appointments for the governor.Well, well, well my socon friends. She lives her life according to her principles and yet governs with a servants heart - listening to the will of the people. It also ups my esteem for her since I believe reproduction is none of government's business. A rather libertarian position. And Sarah is very libertarian leaning. And yet she lives her beliefs. Maybe we have come upon that small government Republican we hear so much about. I ♥ Sarah'cudda more than ever. Prompted by a discussion at The Other McCain. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 11:22 AM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
Fight the program all you want, but appearances still matter!
by Eric Two posts I read yesterday hammered home the importance of something I hate. TELEVISION. My inability to watch it occasionally places me at a disadvantage in evaluating politicians. The problem is that I'm too impatient to put up with people spouting their opinions. When people talk, I can't skim through and "scroll down" to get to the point and save time. And with the tube, there's no human interaction the way there is if the person is sitting there talking to you. I feel completely passive watching it, and if the person is trying to persuade me of something, that oncoming sense that I'm being conned or manipulated triggers that instinctive urge to resist that is unpleasant because I cannot shut off. Now, some people are more honest than others, and there are people who say what they think without trying to play tricks or resorting to demagoguery, but political types are usually engaged in partisan debates, which means they are advocates who slant and spin, spin and slant, always looking for new openings and new ways to sneak their point in. The prevaricate and they exaggerate, and I just don't find the process of listening to them entertaining. What I hate even more than that is commercials. Pure noise pollution -- every bit as bad as hearing the young people's vehicles which go "THUMP-THUMP-TH-THUMP!" as the bass loudspeakers blast everything in a two block radius to kingdom come. (Unlike television, the phenomenon at least provides some emotional satisfaction, as a hearing specialist once explained to me precisely how these idiots are doing physical damage to their interior parts of their ear structure. Tiny fragments actually break off and are gone permanently, which means that about the same time their tattoos start getting blurry and ugly, they won't be able to hear the upper range of a violin. Knowing that they will be punished for their noise eases my irritation somewhat, although I know it is not nice to revel in people's future hearing disabilities.) Anyway, once a commercial comes on, I'm out of there. Back to whatever commercial-free classic movie might be on, and if I've seen it or it looks dumb, then I've usually had it with the TV set. But being ruled by these emotional reactions is not wise, and I need to suspend them at election time. Normally I do, but this time I just wasn't in full-blown election mode, and I failed to watch the candidates. Well, I did watch the Corzine-Christie fat insult video -- but all that did was to heighten my loathing of Corzine and increase my sympathy for Christie. As I said, Like most people, New Jerseyans don't seem to take kindly to personal insults, and I think it proved to be an unforgivable error for Corzine to have ridiculed his opponent's personal appearance. (If I lived in NJ, I'd have voted for Christie for that reason alone.)Here's the thing, though. Just because I don't consider personal characteristics important does not mean that the voters don't. While someone being fat does not incline me to vote for or against someone, it might be very relevant to the affluent joggers who eat only organic health food and play physically fitter-than-thou games with their affluent neighbors in the elite northern suburbs of New York. Obviously, these voters do not constitute a majority, but the point is that being fat can matter, whether I think it should matter or not. What I completely missed because of my TV-phobia was a chance to evaluate the television styles of the two candidates running for NY-23. First, here's Ann Althouse, quoting one of her commenters: We have been inundated with TV commercials here. On TV, Hoffman comes across as exceedingly weird, skinny and overeager with googly eyes, bright yellow teeth, and an odd, halting way of speaking.Now, regardless of how true the above is, I did not have any way of evaluating it, and I was a bit chagrined, because I had limited my analysis to "issues" and what I thought were the dynamics of the race. That's a serious error, because voters in that district want to know more than whether there's a national battle brewing over the heart and soul of the Republican Party. They're voting for the guy they want to be their Congressman, and it's natural that they're going to evaluate him the same way you might evaluate anyone. What is he like? That is not something to be found on a platform at a web site. The guy in question -- Doug Hoffman -- said he was like Reagan. But -- and this is a very important but -- What was Reagan like? He was more than his platform. The man was so affable and charming that his worst enemies were disarmed, and he was one of the most personally likable politicians this country has ever known. Not only that, his long background as a Hollywood and television star gave him such command over the media that all he needed to do to turn the tables on his opponents was to manage to get in front of a camera. This is no exaggeration; I saw it at press conferences. He could get the press to laugh at each other even when the questions were considered serious and damning. I hope I will be forgiven for this digression, but I remembered and found a link to one such instance -- in which Reagan had been supposedly "cornered" by the Grand Dame of the White House Press Corps, Sarah McClendon. (A woman so respected as a left-wing feminist icon that she got away with being "an ardent supporter of the Confederate Memorial Association and continue[d] to serve on its board.") Like the testosteronized female pit bull McClendon was, she really had him by the balls -- or so everyone thought at the time. But that damnably affable Reagan turned the tables on her, first by a self-deprecating comment about his own age, and then saying that if the obsessive questioning continued, the press conference would have to be given an R rating: Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service]?It was sheer brilliance, and I completely cracked up at the time, and please remember that I was very anti-Reagan. I voted against him twice. I only wish I had the video. And I say that as someone who hates television. Reagan never disappointed people who saw the medium as a form of entertainment -- not even if they hated his politics (which I did -- and on culture war issues, still do). I realize that expecting ordinary politicians to have Ronald Reagan's media skills is unreasonable, whether the politician is Doug Hoffman or anyone else. But here's the problem with Doug Hoffman. Seen on television, this man who says he's like Reagan is as un-Reaganlike as it's possible to get. Seriously, when forced myself to watch him -- for the first time yesterday, when it was too late -- I was horrified. So was Oregon Guy, whose discussion of the following video raises some very unpleasant issues, including the possibility of Asperger's Syndrome. There he sits, uncomfortably sandwiched between the Thompsons, almost as if they're hoping to hide him in plain sight. The guy has so little charm that in comparison to Reagan he's like a lobotomy patient who can only recite from a script. Might Hoffman's personality have factored into the original decision not to select him as a candidate? Anyway, I found myself wincing in embarrassment. I don't even want to watch a video of his opponent. That Hoffman did as well as he did despite his appallingly bad television personality truly shows that the level of wrath that so many people have towards incumbents is so high they'll overlook almost anything. This is all easy for me to say now that the election is over and Hoffman has lost. Had I made these observations last week, I might have been seen as a biased, foot-dragging naysayer, as someone who refuses to "get with the program." (Probably another reason I can't stand the TV. All those people, all trying to make me "get with the program." Whatever the program is....) posted by Eric at 10:37 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Marijuana Legalization Is A Republican Issue
by Simon The lady, Jessica Corry, was a press secretary for a Republican Senator. Here is some more information on her. She and her husband have a few words to say on Huffington Post. While leaders from both major political parties whisper privately about the insanity of the drug war, they decline to take a rational public position in support of legalization or decriminalization. Instead, they continue to cater to an ill-conceived misunderstanding of what their respective constituencies believe our marijuana policies should be.In the video she repeats many of the themes I have been hammering for years. What is her game plan for bringing Republicans on board? ...Corry, who does not smoke pot, is trying to organize Republican women around the cause. So far, she has commitments from 20 fellow Coloradoans, most of them lawyers, like Corry. Her husband, also an attorney, represents medical marijuana users.Yep. The Republican Party I know so well. Champions of smaller government. Except when they are not. Way to go my principled friends. Let me just say this. Med pot consistently polls in the 55% to 65% range. In Maine it just garnered 58% in a referendum to make medical marijuana growing and SALES legal. What are you waiting for Republicans? The votes are there for the taking. Want to grow your own where it is legal? This should help: Marijuana Horticulture: The Indoor/Outdoor Medical Grower's Bible Let me add that Jessica talks about the safety of marijuana. Here is a book on the subject: Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? Here is a video made in Israel that is short and funny. It shows a guy drinking and getting belligerent and who do the police arrest? The pot smoker. Sorry no English subtitles. One thing that is amusing in an ugly sort of way is that the one minute clip represents something that is unfortunately nearly universal. H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 09:56 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The worse the crime, the worse the punishment?
by Eric An animal rights nut I am not. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, I do think animals have a right not to be treated cruelly, and while it might be another example of my less than perfect libertarianism, I have no problem in making it a crime for human beings to torture animals. I would remind people who have philosophical problems with this to keep in mind that people who torture animals have a demonstrated tendency to be psychopaths, and are likely to be very dangerous to humans, so a good case can be made that locking them up is not just for the animals' sake. A case I read about today involved a sicko who raped a 21 year old horse: Vereen was arrested in July after Barbara Kenley caught him entering the barn at Lazy B Stables in Longs, about 20 miles northeast of Myrtle Beach. She had been staking out the stable for more than a week after setting up a surveillance camera and videotaping Vereen's assault on her 21-year-old horse named Sugar.Not only can animals not consent to sex with humans, but it's obvious that the animal was harmed and subjected to what would certainly be torture for a human. I have no problem with the guy going to prison for doing that, although I see that the horse's owner thinks he should have gotten more than 3 years. (Actually, it was 5 years with 2 subtracted if he behaves.) But if we contrast his crime and punishment with that of Michael Vick, there are huge disparities that I think are worth examining. What Vick did went far, far beyond sexual penetration, and unlike Sugar the horse, Vick's dogs died indescribably agonizing deaths -- not from fighting, but from the sadistic and gratuitous "punishments" inflicted on them: Most people are aware that Michael Vick was "convicted of dog fighting." They know he went to prison, and they've also probably seen the news stories, including a moving Sports Illustrated cover story, about the Vick dogs that were rescued and rehabilitated after being seized from his Bad Newz Kennels.Vick served 18 months in prison, and he has never expressed regret for conduct that would shock many a hardened dogfighter. So what's with the disparity in punishment? What happened to the horse was wrong, but sexual penetration does not even come close to having jumper cables put on your ear and being electrocuted while slowly drowning in a swimming pool. Screwing someone's horse is sick, but what happened to Vick's dogs was much sicker (at least, by any logical standard). Might it have something to do with Vick being a rich celebrity? Or am I wrong about what is considered more sick? Is there something in the sexual nature of the crime against the horse that makes it "worse" even though the horse recovered? Surely a sexually violated horse would not trade places with a fatally tortured dog. And yet, I can't help wondering whether Vick might have been treated differently had he been caught screwing a horse instead of torturing dogs. I'm not so much talking about sentencing, but would he be welcomed back into the NFL as he is now? Would they just be saying, "Come on, the dude paid his debt to society" as they are now? Surely, screwing a horse is not more immoral than torturing dogs to death. Or is there something I am missing? MORE: Commenting on Ann Althouse's post about the horse screwing conviction, Glenn Reynolds notes a distinction I missed -- that this was someone else's horse and not the man's own horse. (That might make a difference to the horse, too.) Is it a factor that Vick was torturing his own dogs as opposed to someone else's? I don't know, but I still think what he did was far worse than having sex with a horse, and what I can't figure out is why society doesn't seem to think so. If (as one commenter pointed out), sex is something over which we generally have less control than other things, that would seem to be a mitigating factor. And I just can't shake my suspicion that the many people who think it's just fine for Michael Vick to deliver morally uplifting lectures to children would feel differently had he been convicted of horse screwing, and while I don't understand it, I think it has something to do with the way sex is viewed. It is considered "worse" than brutal violence. posted by Eric at 04:46 PM | Comments (11)
| TrackBacks (0)
Why people who want to be left alone vote for people who won't
by Eric It strikes me that running for office is an inherently bothersome (if not annoying) thing to do -- both to yourself and to other people. I suspect that this is why people who want to leave people alone tend not to run for office. It also might explain why the people who are running for office often tend to be precisely the types of people who don't want to leave other people alone. And when they get elected, you can depend on them not to leave you alone. So how about someone running on a platform of "VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE!" Sounds pretty lame, doesn't it? The people who vote might even wonder whether a candidate with such a self-canceling platform was out of his freaking mind. So maybe a better slogan would be "VOTE FOR ME AND I WILL FIGHT THE PEOPLE WHO WON'T LEAVE YOU ALONE!" (Except no one would believe it, as experience has taught them that people who run for office almost never have truly idealistic or altruistic agendas.) I think there are a lot of people out there who want to be left alone, and who really do try to vote accordingly. In many cases, whoever seems to the more reasonable candidate is the one who wins. Unless people are fed up. Then it becomes "THROW THE BUMS OUT!" The problem is, throwing out Bum A can only be accomplished by replacing him with Bum B. Not voting means having no say on the bums at all, even if you think that they should all be thrown out on general principle. The fact is, government has not gotten less intrusive over the years. It has grown ever larger, ever more malignant, ever more unconstitutional, ever more wasteful, ever more vengeful, and ever more eager to not leave anyone alone. Voting in the Republicans has never really worked as a solution, and now it's become clear to many voters that replacing Republicans with Democrats is even worse than replacing Democrats with Republicans. Voting is when people who want to be left alone are forced to choose between candidates to whom the idea of leaving people alone is anathema, and who only disagree on whom they plan to leave alone. It's like having to vote for a crime boss by selecting between two criminals, one of whom promises to steal only jewelry from houses with wood siding (on a platform of "spreading the wealth") and another who promises to steal only electronic appliances from houses with brick walls (on a platform of "promoting fairness and efficiency"). As to the people who live in houses with both brick walls and wood siding who have both jewelry and electronics, well, fortunately, they belong to a tiny minority. Besides, shouldn't they have thought about it before they asked for trouble? After all, we have to elect someone. What is a person who wants to be left alone supposed to do? Vote for whoever does the best job of telling them what they want to hear? If that has not worked before, why would it work this time? Isn't that like Einstein's definition of insanity? If the purpose of voting is to elect people to government, and if the purpose of government is not to leave people alone, then I think a related form of insanity is to imagine that people running for the express purpose of not leaving you alone somehow will. As a commenter recently accused libertarians of being like anarchists, But such chatter about the Constitution is silly, because the Government has long superseded it -- to the point where anyone taking the constitutional literally has become an anarchist for all practical purposes. In fact, in terms of today's federal government, constitutional literalism can be seen as nihilism. You might be free to talk that way in blog posts, but if you tried running for office on such a platform, you'd never get the endorsement of either major party. I suppose you might be able to wangle a spot on the Libertarian Party ticket, but you'd be stuck having to run as a kook. However, you could promise honestly to leave people alone, and you could even mean it, but it wouldn't mean much. Because the people who want to be left alone want to be left alone by real candidates -- people who are serious about running for the job of not leaving them alone! UPDATE: Some advice to the Republicans from our friends across the sea at Samizdata: ...the Republicans need to rediscover the "leave me alone" agenda of limited government, low taxes, tight spending and free trade. And they need to rediscover it convincingly, and learn the lessons of George W. Bush's terrible error of talking the free market talk while doing the exact opposite. The GOP also needs to remember that being in favour of small government is not just about economics, either.Unfortunately, big government, national greatness conservatism (which ought to be called "Conservative Statism") is an ideology designed by committee, and it appeals to wide variety of government-lovers on the right. Let's face it, neither constitutional literalism nor libertarianism offers many employment opportunities for the think tank policy wonks, and the political reality is that the many people it takes to put someone in office expect to be rewarded for their efforts. posted by Eric at 03:37 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
A Victory For Cultural Conservatives
by Simon Maine has voted against legalizing gay marriage. And of course cultural conservatives are crowing. Or at least greatly relieved if you can believe the pictures. The final tally is not in but the numbers are running about 53 to 47 against. But Maine also voted on medical marijuana. And the results there are a little different. Mainers who use marijuana to relieve the symptoms of certain medical conditions will have easier access to the drug after voters approved Question 5 on Tuesday's statewide referendum ballot.So Gay Marriage is 53 to 47 against and med pot is 58 to 42 for. So maybe Maine is not quite so socially conservative after all. Maybe for marijuana or at least medical marijuana the culture war is over. Another interesting stat. As of this post there are 29 comments on the med pot story and 759 on the gay marriage story. Which more or less says that Medical Marijuana is a non-issue for voters. Now if only politicians could get that message. Especially the crooks in DC. H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 02:35 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
Abortion Is Murder
by Simon I'm having a little discussion with a commenter at The Other McCain about abortion. I know more than a few social conservatives read this blog so maybe they can help me out. Here is the comment I was replying to: The Indentured Servant Girl said...So I have a few questions. You mean the women are not at least accomplices in premeditated murder? Then abortion is not really murder is it?So could one or more of my social conservative friends please explain it to me? If abortion is murder why wouldn't the woman involved be at least charged as an accomplice to premeditated murder? After all in these kinds of cases (the vast majority any way) the woman is not kidnapped against her will and forced to get an abortion. She is an active participant and pays money to get the job done. So is abortion premeditated murder or not? Well maybe pregnant women are not in their right mind. So I could see that as an out. Of course that argues that pregnant women ought not be allowed to vote. Maybe menstruating women too. In fact with the monthly hormone roller coaster ride I can see a lot of things women in their child bearing years should be denied the opportunity to do. You know how some women get PMS? We need laws to protect us from those she devils. Or maybe the government should just stay out of reproduction all together. It might just wind up another expensive boondoggle like the Drug War. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 11:56 AM | Comments (35)
| TrackBacks (0)
Why do they keep trying to change my mind?
by Eric On the issue of gay marriage, I have always been skeptical about state involvement. I realize my position is hardly the conventional libertarian one, but I have long had misgivings, and I vacillate between sympathy towards those of good will on both sides and general apathy. Analyzed in terms of freedom, I could almost go either way. However, I find myself easily irritated by the shrill tactics of activists, and I don't like political harangues. What this means is that when gay activists throw hissy fits, they not only fail to persuade me, they actually make me less sympathetic to their cause, and more sympathetic to the cause of the people who just want to be left alone. Perhaps that's because I'm a live-and-let-live person who (in an ideal world) would like to be left alone. How I can be that way and also be a daily political blogger is one among many of the endless contradictions that inspire my blogging. Here's what I am intrigued by today. When I woke up, I thought about the last thing I wrote last night -- about the evolution of the gay marriage issue from something which had been a joke not long ago into something that came respectably close to winning in Maine: Frankly, I'm surprised it's this close, and I'd have been amazed if it won. Just a few years ago, the vote could easily have been expected to be 70-30 against gay marriage.Checking my email this morning, I was greeted by another haranguing email from longtime emailer (and now a leading anti-gay activist) Matt Barber, who has now forced me to ask a basic question. Why is Matt Barber of all people trying so hard to convince me to support gay marriage? Like I say, I've long been a skeptic, and I can understand the arguments on both sides, but I worry that it could be a back door for creeping statism -- government getting into the very bedrooms where it supposedly did not belong. But the way Barber frames the gay marriage issue, he makes it very difficult for me to sit on the sidelines, whether in the spirit of laissez faire or in the spirit of old-fashioned compromise. He sees it as a battle involving the "forced affirmation of homosexuality" in which brave truth tellers combat radical deviancy: This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children - for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about 'marriage.' It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality - under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren't for a brave group of truth tellers - Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker - who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room - homosexual deviancy and the radical 'gay' agenda - counterfeit marriage might have prevailed."If gay marriage is forced affirmation of homosexuality, then straight marriage must be forced affirmation of heterosexuality. I'm wondering how many of the millions of opposite sex couples who have fallen in love and been married over the years ever stopped to realize that what they were doing was forcing people to affirm their heterosexuality. And now that the brave truth tellers have told them, will they become heterosexual activists? I don't know, but my advice to the gay activists would be to send money to Barber and La Barbera and the boys, because I suspect that the more they scream, the more the ordinary people who want to be left alone will be inclined to vote against them. And what the gay activists need to do instead of throwing their usual hissy fits is absolutely nothing. Go indoors, go on vacation, and let the straight people be convinced by Matt Barber, who is so convincing that he's making me feel like going wobbly. But I won't. Because even though I might be wrong in my gay marriage skepticism, I don't want it said that Matt Barber changed my mind. MORE: While it didn't attract much attention, it just so happens that the top vote-getter in Houston's mayoral race was gay, and Michael Petrelis argues that the key to winning is to avoid support from what he terms "Gay Inc.": The immediate lesson I saw from tonight, other than the boring old one of Gay Inc really knows how to lose these things, was that if you want to be a top vote-getter, avoid lots of public backing from or be seen as the darling of the HRC/NGLTF/GLAAD/Gill Action/DNC axis.Via Glenn Reynolds. While I don't intend to give advice to the other "side" in the gay marriage debate, I like Petrelis's characterization of the HRC/NGLTF/GLAAD/Gill Action/DNC axis as "Gay Inc." And I think the Barber/LaBarbera/Camenker/AFT axis people have probably earned the title of "Anti-Gay Inc." I think that when seen together (and what would they be without each other?) "Gay Inc." and "Anti-Gay Inc." represent another axis of sorts -- an axis of axes to grind. Working together to build a more contentious world. AFTERTHOUGHT: I may not have been making myself clear enough, but the process I describe is called collusion, and I think Gay Inc. and Anti-Gay Inc. provide a classic illustration of it. They need each other badly, because whether they will admit it or not, both are working toward a common goal -- the continued stigmatization of a minority for political ends. Both sides need this stigma, and both sides want being gay to matter, but for different political purposes. Without the stigma, who on earth would care about gay identity politics? posted by Eric at 10:22 AM | Comments (5)
| TrackBacks (0)
Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush
by Simon First off. I got my numbers from Obama/Keyes and Kerry/Bush. So let us start with the numbers. Also let me add that this is going to be somewhat simplistic since I did not look at exit polls to determine who did what and why. It should give some idea of what went on though. Not counting vote fraud. Obama 3,597,456 Total 4,988,146 === Kerry 2,891,550 Total 5,237,946 Let me start with the undervote. 249,800 more people (probably Republicans just to make things simple) voted in the Kerry/Bush (K/B) race than in the Obama/Keyes (O/K) race. Probably Republicans who couldn't stand either candidate. So let us see how that looks for O/K. If we subtract Kerry from Obama we get 705,906. That means (roughly) that 705,906 Republican voters voted for the Communist over the Socon. I was one of them. It was a protest vote by me against the R party for putting a socon on the ballot who was running on a Theocon platform. So am I against socons? NO. I support Sarah Palin nationally and Doug Hoffman in NY23. Why? Hoffman is running on a strictly fiscal responsibility platform with NO Culture War issues. And Sarah Palin Governed Alaska on a fiscal responsibility/anti-corruption platform. So what about the Theocons? The American Taliban is rather apt. Not in terms of the culture they want to enforce but in the fact that they want to enforce culture. My attitude? On social issues the socons should lead by example not government force. The persuasion of Jesus is better than the sword of Rome. If you are trying to get votes. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 09:32 AM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Obama Poison In Texas
by Simon Libertarian Republican reports. Libertarian Republican has just learned that 73 elected officials on the county level throughout Texas have just switched, are in the process of switching, and will be switching by the end of the week, from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. The news comes to us from Bryan Preston, Communications Director for the Republican Party of Texas out of Austin.And the reason given? "Obama's name is becoming poison here in Texas."Well Nancy Pelosi said that 2010 would be a tough year for Democrats. What she wasn't counting on was that 2009 might not be so hot either. So what about these new Republicans? Opportunists. Still. It does tell us where the opportunity lies. At least in Texas. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 12:41 AM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0) Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Victory for laissez faire?
by Eric In what seems a mini referendum on government economic policies, the Democrats lost big in Virginia, and in New Jersey Governor Corzine lost to Chris Christie, despite the personal intervention of President Barack Obama in both races. Like most people, New Jerseyans don't seem to take kindly to personal insults, and I think it proved to be an unforgivable error for Corzine to have ridiculed his opponent's personal appearance. (If I lived in NJ, I'd have voted for Christie for that reason alone.) As to the race which so many people are watching (NY-23), in what is described as "not good news for political junkies," there may not be final results any time soon because of scanner problems: This is not good news for political junkies hoping to get a winner in New York's 23rd Congressional District before bedtime: There are voting machine problems in St. Lawrence County, one of the more populous areas in the district.And so far, Ann Arbor has nothing to report either. (Not that this is a blog for Ann Arborites, but I do live here.) So in terms of the big nationally watched elections, there's really nothing for me to report or "live blog" -- other than to remark the obvious fact that if this is a test of the national mood, the Democrats are not holding up well. As to social issues, I think it's worth noting that so far, this appears to have been a good night for gay rights. According to John Aravosis, a gay rights ordinance in Kalamazoo, Michigan is passing: ...65 percent of Kalamazoo voters have approved Ordinance 1856 by a vote of 6,463 to 3,527, adding protections for gay and transgender people to the city's nondiscrimination ordinance.And in what could be a historic first, Maine voters are (so far) surprisingly close to approving same sex marriage: Voters had to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.Bear in mind that none of these results are final. It's a mixed bag, but if I had to venture an interpretation based on what I've seen so far, I'd say things are looking pretty good for economic and social laissez faire. MORE: The Ann Arbor measure to increase property taxes I blogged about earlier is failing by a fairly wide margin. Even in ultra liberal Ann Arbor, voters don't like tax increases. Democrats take note! AND MORE: According to the Washington Examiner, Owens is beating Hoffman in NY-23: In New York's 23rd Congressional District, Democrat Bill Owens had a substantial lead over Conservative Doug Hoffman.Ditto, NY Daily News: ...in NY-23, Democrat Bill Owens is peforming a lot better than expected. Thirty-one percent of precincts are reporting and he's leading Conservative Doug Hoffman, 51.1 percent to 43.9 percent.Although I had misgivings about Hoffman's social conservatism, it's clear that Scozzafava was not a Republican in any way, not even economically. Hmmm... Perhaps the voters had had it with all the national hype, and finally decided they'd rather just vote for a Democrat who said he was a Democrat rather than be dragged against their will into a much-hyped "referendum" on a "bloody Republican civil war" they never asked to fight. If you think about it, it is a way of voting against the incumbency. (The outside media incumbency, that is...) Maybe even an act of leave-us-the-hell-alone laissez faire. MORE: Same sex marriage now appears to be losing in Maine: With 69 percent of precincts reporting, roughly 51.8 percent of voters had voted in favor of rejecting the same-sex marriage law passed by the Legislature earlier this spring. Roughly 48.2 percent of voters had voted no on Question 1.Frankly, I'm surprised it's this close, and I'd have been amazed if it won. Just a few years ago, the vote could easily have been expected to be 70-30 against gay marriage. CORRECTION (11/04/09): I was mistaken in last night's analysis of the Ann Arbor election results. While WWISD PROPOSAL I (the property tax increase) did in fact fail, it failed county-wide, but appears that a majority of Ann Arbor voters favored it. (I have not done the totals, but I can see that it only lost in one precinct, and lost among the absentee voters.) AND MORE: I am glad to see I am not alone in my thoughts about what might have happened in NY-23. Here's Don Surber: In choosing Democrat Bill Owens over Conservative Doug Hoffman, perhaps the people of the district were telling outsiders to butt out.Via Glenn Reynolds. AND EVEN MORE: Speaking of not being alone in my thoughts, don't miss Roger L. Simon's analysis! In a year where the GOP racked up a 20% margin in Virginia and coasted easily in Jersey, a state in which Obama romped in '08 by 16%, what was the problem?Truer words were never spoken. However, I think the opponents of laissez faire will simply gear up for the next battle. posted by Eric at 10:28 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
I was almost misled by the fear-mongering tactics of Bush's Ann Arbor bureaucrats!
by Eric As today is Election Day, I thought that as a public service message, I'd remind everyone to vote. I just did, and the only issue of any importance here in Ann Arbor is a proposal for a double digit property tax increase. Ann Arbor already has the highest property taxes in the state, but that's not enough for the tax guzzling bureaucrats, who say they need more money for the schools. I voted NO, but only because there wasn't a choice that said "HELL NO!" In marked contrast to last November (when it took me two hours to vote) the polls were nearly empty today. Whether that means that raising taxes is not a hot-button issue, I don't know. Certainly I saw no Tea Party anti-tax demonstrators anywhere, but that doesn't mean there isn't any opposition to the tax millage. There is, but as Ann Arbor is a very left wing town, opposition to tax hikes is marketed via a cleverly packaged attack on Bush. No, I am not kidding: Several groups have organized to defeat the millage, but taking the lead is the Citizens for Responsible School Spending, spearheaded by former AAPS board member Kathy Griswold and Ted Annis, a technology entrepreneur who's on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.I wouldn't have said that, but hey, whatever tactic works, I guess. I'm glad I read that after I voted, though. Because, over the years I became so conditioned by years of kneejerk anti-Bush attacks that I might have been tricked into voting for the millage by mistake! Instead, I voted against the millage without knowing that I was actually voting against Bush's misleading, fear mongering tactics! Hope I did the right thing. These days, you have to be careful! posted by Eric at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
Al Gore, Soon-To-Be Billionaire?
by Dave The combination of Gaia worship, agitprop and rent-seeking pays very well indeed. So, given that Gore is reaping huge rewards, doesn't this call into question just a teensy bit the objectivity of his business partner James Hansen, the man NASA has administering the numbers telling us how much the climate is allegedly warming (when he's not busy comparing coal trains to Auschwitz or getting arrested outside power plants)? I mean, if warmies can get upset at a mere $10,000 "blood money" in funding for anti-AGW research, how much outrage is a billion dollars worth? Quoth the Goracle: "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it." Somewhere Milton Friedman is shaking his fist and Friedrich Hayek is vomiting. Advocating quasi-religious laws that get your companies fat contracts is not business, it's rent-seeking, and Al Gore is Chief Glazier in the Church of Broken Windows. UPDATE: You thought I was kidding about the religious angle, didn't you? Al's Gore's much-anticipated sequel to An Inconvenent Truth is published today, with an admission that facts alone will not persuade Americans to act on global warming and that appealing to their spiritual side is the way forward. posted by Dave at 11:35 AM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Things that make some lives easier can make other lives more precarious
by Eric Glenn Reynolds raises the unsettling question of whether there's a bad driving gene. I have long suspected there's some explanation along such lines, but it now appears that there's some scientific evidence for it: People with a particular gene variant performed more than 20 percent worse on a driving test than people without it - and a follow-up test a few days later yielded similar results. About 30 percent of Americans have the variant.Randall Parker has an additional observation which ought to be of concern for those who want the government to stay out of people's lives: We are not all as well adapted genetically to industrialized civilization. This one gene, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), is just one of many genes where we differ from each other in our ability to handle the many products and environmental niches we've created with industrialization. Some people can't handle beer or cocaine or addictive drugs. Some other people can't handle the sleep deprivation made easier by Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb. Still others can't handle easy access to online gambling or online porn.Fortunately, I can say never mind whether some people can handle easy access to guns better than others -- because the Second Amendment treats all citizens as adults in the theoretical and moral sense. But there is no right to drive. So, if we assume the bad driving gene goes along with a genetic inability to "handle the many products and environmental niches we've created with industrialization," it strikes me as commonsensical that the people with the bad driving gene ought to have the simple human decency not to compound their predicament by using cell phones while driving. However, I think it is an undeniable fact that there are some people who can. As I discussed in an earlier post (prompted by my frustration over the usual idiots who are unable to talk on a cell phone while driving) even at the height of the 1970s CB radio craze, no one ever proposed banning the use of CB radios by drivers, and I think this was because their users tended to be more mechanically inclined people. Remember, the CB radios began with truck drivers, who hold special commercial drivers licenses, and for them, talking while driving just goes with the turf. It spread from them to those drivers who so badly wanted to communicate that they would actually go out and buy a CB radio, a special antenna, and (at least in the early stages) actually get an FCC license. In those days, cell phones ("car phones") were big, bulky, permanently-wired affairs, not the sort of thing anyone could carry around, and expensive to use. Eventually they made CB radios revert to something only truckers who wanted to talk to other truckers would want. The point is, everyone has a cell phone now, even kids who are too young to drive. Here in the heavy student areas of Ann Arbor, I've noticed that some young people are incapable of even walking safely while using their phones. I have had them walk right in front of me, eyes riveted to tiny screens while I slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them. Things have gotten to the point where in almost every situation where I'm amazed and baffled by the degree of utter incompetence behind the wheel, it turns out that the driver is lost in some sort of mental process while using a cell phone. At this point, calling them "cell phones" has become less than accurate. They are multitasking gadgets that do everything including taking pictures, checking and sending email, text messages, and of course, playing whatever vast collection of music has been stored in them by the user, who has often compounded his or her visual awareness problem by blocking all incoming sounds with headphones!! Like I say, it's bad enough when they walk in front of you, but when they're behind the wheel, it's scary. And some of them are young women with the additional distraction of children, driving vehicles so huge that they are unaware of how much space surrounds them. Should there be laws? Based on what? Abilities? Or common sense? That's the problem. I try not to do things beyond my mechanical competence, and it strikes me that catching up with my email while blasting music into my ears while walking into city traffic (much less while driving) is not wise. Yet passing a law to stop people from doing such things reduces us all to the idiot level. I don't want to live in a vast national kindergarten. But in a free society, how is the law to distinguish between those who have this "ability to handle the many products and environmental niches we've created with industrialization" gene and those who don't? I worry that technological advances might be accelerating a social divergence which isn't really being acknowledged as it should. (Even though the idea of Future Shock is decades old.) If some people are genetically more capable of being adults, what are the implications? Should we just let Darwin sort it out? Or would that be antisocial? I'd hate to think that not wanting to live in a national kindergarten is antisocial. But on the bright side, the regulations that come on the heels of technology might a bit like the taxes that come on the heels of wealth. There would be no regulations on technology without the technology to regulate.... Nah, scratch that! There's already a movement to regulate certain kinds of technology before it happens. At this rate, I will never be allowed to have sex with a robot. posted by Eric at 11:10 AM | Comments (10)
| TrackBacks (0)
A National Party
by Simon I'm having a long conversation about the future of the Republican Party at The Other McCain. There is a lot of back and forth and if you go to the link you can follow the discussion. What I would like to present here is my conclusion. I was replying to a comment by BD. BD,As Casey Stengel once said, "Can't anyone play this game?" Palin can. So far. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon at 02:32 AM | Comments (18)
| TrackBacks (0)
A demographic preference for tiredness?
by Eric For entertainment purposes only, I thought I'd juxtapose two radically different opinions on the future of the Democratic Party. From WSJ's Daniel Henninger in "Why Dems Should Start to Sweat": ...what we are seeing with this massive legislation is that the Democrats in Washington have a bigger problem: Their party is looking so yesterday.For an opposite view, Open Left has a piece titled "Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared," which maintains (with plenty of charts and numbers) that population demographics heavily favor the Democrats: Not only are non-whites a growing share of the electorate and highly likely to vote for Democrats, but both non-whites and whites are increasingly likely to vote for Democrats. Republicans are in deep doo-doo. This idea has been gaining traction over the past year, but it cannot be repeated enough.Is this an either or situation, or might both positions have merit? I mean, suppose the Democrats are tired (I think they are), and that non-whites prefer the tired politics of the past (which I hope they don't). To my mind, the latter might suggest that a growing number of Americans are being led instead of thinking for themselves. That would suck, so I'm going to hope it's wrong. posted by Eric at 12:34 AM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, November 2, 2009
Rich putsch kitsch
by Eric As a lot of people are sounding off about Frank Rich's latest silly column, I thought I'd chime in. I don't know whether he's trying to outdo himself in terms of pure buffoonery, but this time, Rich is hell-bent on proving that the conservatives who support Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race are a bunch of "Stalinists." In a piece titled "The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York," he refers to a "riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war" and a "G.O.P. killing field." And later (after an embarrassing historical mismatch in which he refers to the "Hoffman putsch"), he claims conservatives are "re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode." It's easy to dismiss this as overwrought political hyperbole, which it is. But like a lot of hyperbole, every little bit adds more incrementally more damage to the ability to communicate. What is happening in NY-23 is democracy from in action and the political process at work. Voters like Doug Hoffman more than they like the dishonorable Dede Scozzafava, and (as appears most likely) more than they like Democrat Bill Owens. That they will elect Hoffman is the antithesis of Stalinism. Stalinism is state terrorism and murder -- directed from the top down. This is peaceful democracy from the ground up, against the tyranny at the top. And while Frank Rich may not realize it, no one was killed. Despite the "riotous and bloody" civil war, not one single corpse lies on the killing fields of upstate New York. Words and terms become useless when they're abused this way ("racism" is another example of a word which no longer means anything). My guess is that Rich (in addition to bashing conservatives) doesn't want Stalinism to mean anything. Yet under Stalinism, more people were killed than under any other "ism" known to man. So, aside from being inaccurate, Rich's analogy trivializes mass murder on a grand scale. All too easy for me to say. But I may be wrong, for the bloody Stalinist putsch will take place tomorrow, when Doug Hoffman stands poised seize power and murderously overthrow all of those democratically elected Czars. Would it spoil Frank Rich's fun if I venture that no one will actually be killed? posted by Eric at 04:18 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0) |
|
November 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
PJM/BREITBART FEEDS
Classical Values Torture Poll
Archives
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Categories
Recent Entries
Defeating Libertarian Logic
Female Shoots Jihadi Libertarian Republican Election News Song Of The Warrior Madison versus Hoyer (with sources!) Obamanomics 101 America's dysfunctional relationship with radical Wahhabism Libertarian Wins In Queens Muslim Jihadist Infiltrators Ayn Rand On The Middle East
Links
Alphecca (My Blogdaddy) ![]() ![]() Puff the Protector Andrew Sullivan Gays in Military Site Middle East Media Research Institute Gay Libertarian Site The Bitch Girls Join the NRA! SECOND AMENDMENT VIDEO! Shooters' Carnival
Tammy Bruce Gun Owners of America
David Hackworth
Hell In A Handbasket Matt Welch The Volokh Conspiracy Virginia Postrel PseudoPsalms The Light of Reason The Anger of Compassion Anger Management Dustbury.com Rachel Lucas Shadow Government reflections in d minor JustOneMinute Boone Country Catallarchy Agenda Bender Mike Silverman Steven Malcolm Anderson Walter in Denver Impearls Donald Sensing Howard Owens Loco Parentis Colby Cosh VodkaPundit Radley Balko Dean's World The Queen of All Evil baldilocks Joe Gandelman Dave Tepper Begging to Differ Kesher Talk Jeff Jarvis Doc Searls Little Green Footballs Captain Ed Oh, That Liberal Media! ICANNfocus.org God of the Machine Sandefur's Freespace Wizbang Robert Prather LawPundit The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Amygdala bilious young fogey MadLab On the Fritz why dave bergman is neat Skiplog Clowning Glory Dispatches from the Culture Wars Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon? Anti-Socialist Tendencies Of Interest WICKED THOUGHTS Setting The World To Rights doubleplusgood infotainment It Can't Rain All The Time Scrutineer Nick Danger, International Man of Mystery seldom sober TRITICALE Random Jottings Graham Lester point2point Shark Blog Gene Healy Discount Blogger Six Foot Pole Dodgeblogium Across the Atlantic The Imperialist Dog Lex Talionis Mind Of Mog Say Uncle CAMPVS MAWRTIVS res gestae dionysii Annika's Journal & Poetry A :{FRUSTRATED}: ARTIST Yet another weird SF fan Lincoln Cat The Meatriarchy Who is Ronald? Short Daddy Punch Drunk Mookie Riffic On The Third Hand MatthewEdgar.net ZenPundit Jennifer's History and Stuff argghhh!!! Modulator D.C. Thornton Centerfield Asymmetrical Information Airline Pilots Security Assn Relapsed Catholic PAPADOC Abraca-Pocus The Pryhills Winds of Change Daily Pundit The Speculist Regnum Crucis The Elfin Ethicist Classics in Contemporary Culture elephant-rabbits A Perfectly Cromulent Blog allied Parableman Southern Musings CALIFORNIA YANKEE Allen's Arena Ex-Gay Watch Jonno Michael Moore doesn't love me! Eschaton Clayton Cramer Letters From a Strip of Dirt Oliver Willis Hesiod Theogeny Dr Zen JunkYardBlog Orcinus Ideofact Letter from Gotham Oraculations INCITE Positive Liberty ALLAH IS IN THE HOUSE Tiny Little Lies My So-Called Penis Keith Devens Jason Holliston W(h)ine Country Straight White Guy Ken MacLeod Lawrence Lessig PaleoJudaica.com EdCone.com Common Sense and Wonder Who knew? Daily Howler James Landrith Chief Wiggles L.T. Smash damnum absque injuria Daniel W. Drezner OxBlog Reason of Voice Steven Den Beste Wonkette! Cranial Cavity Gibberish in Neutral DramaQueen vivalabloog Classics in Contemporary Culture The LLama Butchers HobbsOnLine ACIDMAN Sector 7-G Zogby Blog mtpolitics.net Horologium Civic Dialogues Practical Penumbra Right Wing News Stranger in a Strange Land Ambient Irony Tiger: Raggin' & Rantin' Read My Lips Jay Solo The Alliance The Smallest Minority Wrong Side of Happiness Wince and Nod One Little Victory Fishbucket suburban blight Sketches of Strain Boi from Troy Being American in T.O. Outside the Beltway One Fine Jay Bill and Kent's Place on the Web Burton Terrace This Book Stinks The Happy Carpenter Political Correctness Watch GREENIE WATCH Resource.full This Liberal" Brainville BLAMBLOG Ordinary Galoot QandO Josh Cohen Extra Ordinary Ideas brykMantra Croooow Blog Old Right commiewatch Proculian Meditations UggaBugga Dustin the No-Longer-Blogless Les Jones Blog Temporal Globe Postcards from Nowhere Tarazet Unfogged Synthstuff Riba Rambles Mitch Berg The National Debate scha-den-freu-de Ocean Guy Topic Exchange CELESTIAL OFFERINGS Texas Native Somewhere over the Rainbough Why read this? End NPR Bias Ace of Spades HQ Web Dawn GANGSTORIES Sheila Astray's Redheaded Ramblings Alan Sullivan (Seablogger) hobbyblog FuturePundit.com Tim Blair A Voyage To Arcturus HipperCritical BarlowFriendz Jihad Watch Kin's Kouch Bad Money The Campblog News Junkie Canada De Doc's Doings Bigwig Eject!Eject!Eject! Tom's Nap Room A Coon Cat's World The sexual adventures of Woodie and Peaches Crystalline Ceramics Web Resource Heh. Indeed. NakedVillainy.com Andrew David Chamberlain The Karmic Inquisition Adam Smith Institute Weblog Andrea Harris Hi. I'm Black Banana Oil Jim Miller on Politics Who Tends the Fires Ranck and File MOLOTOV COCKTAIL FRANK NOLI IRRITARE LEONES Miss O'Hara deadmaus Coffee With Rhoads robot guy Travelling Shoes Admiral Quixote's Roundtable danm.us The Argus Dissecting Leftism Dissecting Leftism -- OLD Site Aaron's cc Commentariat The Argus - Registan INDC Journal Pundit Ex Machina DeMythology Peppermint Tea Gilly's World Beyond the Black Hole La Shawn Barber" Perverse Access Memory Invisible Adjunct Photon Courier Intel Dump Junkscience.com The SmarterCop Laban Tall Banagor Peeve Farm Rand Simberg camedwards.com Kim du Toit Mrs. du Toit Dancing with Dogs Two--Four Heretical Ideas Astonished Head Outlandish Josh Central Oregon for Dean The White Peril 白禍 (Sean Kinsell) www.blktlr.com Subterranean Bungalo DFMoore Dave Halliday Well Versed Qoheleth 60: Joel Moody's Repository quo vado jonrowe.blogspot.com yellopad Sticks of Fire Dissecting Leftism ByteMagick Blogs of War PRESTOPUNDIT Of Interest The Meatriarchy Bernhardt Varenius The Forager Miller?s Time Blogs of War painting to stay (?) sane Blue Goldfish | Surface Clowning Glory House of Payne International Last Chance Caf馬t;/a> Psychology of Leftism a_sdf CONSERVATISM/RIGHTISM Taylor & Company The Vicious Circle Leftists as Elitists Eye of the Storm A scratch area Wicked Thoughts Filtrat The Bayou City Perspective The Belfry Blogger Setting The World To Rights Ljonn.com Oddly Normal Varifrank Jamie Jamison on Technology GayPatriot A New York Escorts Confessions jamescalvin.com The Eleven Day Empire Dr. Rusty Shackleford Eric's Grumles Before The Grave Belmont Club Gumbo Pie BeldarBlog MooreThoughts Blind Adherence Last One Speaks Logic Monkey Bird's Eye View DIRTY WATER Forgadring precision-guided cowboy Punditmania Minor Thoughts Just Askin' HispaLibertas Let's Try Freedom Megan McArdle Ann Althouse Beautiful Atrocities Sean Hackbarth Power and Control Professor Bainbridge Power Line Dialogic Darleen's Place I'm N.O. Pundit! Done With Mirrors AMERICAN FUTURE CodeBlueBlog Gay Orbit Urthshu Zacht Ei Interested-Participant blake taylor The Anchoress Freespeech.com Spiked Decision '08 (Mark Coffey) White Lightning Axiom: Redux The Big Picture Rachel Lucas BEI John Cole Haight Speech evolution: on the loose Moderates of all Nations, Unite! Jeff Gannon THE GLEESON BLOGLOMERATE Pajama Pundits Centerpiece The Radical Centrist Lab-Tested FreedomSight AmbivaBlog evolution Marx & Friends in their own words Elective Application Religion Research Islam Blog YOUNGPUNDIT.COM {finding peace in the chaos} IQ & PC -- By Chris Brand Classics in Contemporary Culture Morse's Code A&W Bench Marx Julie Neidlinger Shades of Gray The Daily Lion: NeoLibertarianism on a Stick Miller's Time Centerpiece This Liberal Coming Anarchy Lay Lines that'sRich the blog eclectic booklore Yankee Madmen Jesusland Expatriate Amazing Motor Girls Spiced Sass Decline and Fall of Western Civilization Modern Crusader MaroonBlog Skriblerier, etc. I am partially fused with infinity Eros Colored Glasses Bill Peschel: The man comes around The Twins Tell the Truth wickens.ca The War of Ideas ConsterNations EaglesUp Blog Vitriolics Anonymous DIRTY WATER Mean Mr. Mustard 2.0 EDUCATION WATCH THE RIGHT SCALE AIS Knight Hammer SOCIALIZED MEDICINE The Argus DON'T BE DUMB! Blue Goldfish | Surface GUN WATCH De Docs Institute for Memetic Engineering And Polymaths... Wordpress Test Weblog Kapowie Zone Political Theory: Weblogs You know, they say... all blogged down Harkonnendog Big Dirigible GeoPoliticalreview.com Coyote Blog Blog Retrofuturistic VietPundit JasonColeman.com Logical Meme Bloggledygook Discursive Recursions Bird's Eye View Right Wing Nut House ELEMENOHPEE Locusts and Honey Moonbattery The Everlasting Phelps Mythusmage Opines The Cassandra Page Of Arms & the Law The Daily Bork Strange Stuff Another Gay Republican Libertarian Man of Mystery Liberty Just In Case TalkLeft Joe's Dartblog Iowa Hawk The Common Room Darth Vader Gay Bipolar Republican Boxing Alcibiades Baby TrollBlog Strange Fictions Urban Hermit The Eye of Polyphemus Toe In The Water Bryan's Basement Fishkite Right on the Left Coast Beltway Buzz pike speak Scared Monkeys The Mudville Gazette Matt Sheffield Undercaffeinated Trey Jackson NashvilleFiles.com Moonbat Central Dust my Broom The Cliffs of Insanity Riding Sun The Modo Blog Philly Future philly Off In The Tall Weeds Doug Petch.Com Gays for Life the True Nature of Reality Spinning Clio Mike Huckabee President 2008 A.E.Brain that rogueclassicist guy A M㯠Invis�l Constantly Risking Absurdity Laurence Simon Notes & Musings A World of Speculation Weird Events Pit Bull Wars New World Man Mark in Mexico The Palmetto Pundit All Things Jen(nifer) Generic Confusion Justus for All iHillary Michael Totten Don Surber Maggie's Farm Unpaid Punditry Corps The Counter Hippie Kicking On Doors FunnyBusiness Restless Mania Mark Tapscott nobody sasses a girl in glasses Letters from the Bostonian Exile The Education Wonks Diana Hseih just muttering Right-Wing of the Gods Michelle Malkin Inside Larry's Head Ballpoint Wren A Blog For All The Liberal Wrong American Outlook Splog Reporter From the Grand Stand Tinabell Affordable Housing Institute mudphud Living In The Past Searchlight Crusade Gus Van Horn Ian Schwartz One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty Suburban Bourgeois The Metropolis Times DR. HELEN Philadelphia AIDS Thrift Sir Humphrey's Birth Story The Simplest Thing Blue Star Chronicles One Stack Mind Cathy Young Neocon Express A A R D V A R K World Climate Report Apartment 604 Yelling at the Windshield Kimdergarten/ ShrinkWrapped The Bear Cave X marks the blogspot CARRY ON AMERICA Jim Rose Kiril, The Mad Macedonian Signal 94 Pseudo-Polymath The International Libertarian Gates of Vienna California Sojourn The Liberty Papers Barcepundit A. Jacksonian Jon Swift Tim Maguire Three Sticks Asymmetric Dog Politics OregonGuy Little Miss Attila Buuuuurrrrning Hot AGENT BEDHEAD Tygrrrr Express David Harsanyi Snowflakes in Hell Earnest Iconoclast Eternity Road Musings of the GeekWithA.45 Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest Argue With Everyone Political Forum Nathan J. Winograd Assistant Village Idiot Parkway Rest Stop Grouchy Old Cripple Technicalities Coalition of the Swilling TigerHawk Mary Madigan Sad Old Goth Erica Sherman Joated Ezra Levant
![]() Blogroll Classical Values! Pssst! Wanna get on the Classical Values blogroll? Please send me an email and let me know, because although I try to keep up, sometimes I have trouble finding every last link.
Site Credits
|
|