Thursday, November 18, 2010

Thought on Joe Miller

As he has truly been surpassed in votes by Murkowski, and the only possible way for him to get elected is to get her ballots disqualified on technicalities of spelling (and apparently now even that will not be enough), he should concede and get on with it. Even if he would make a better Senator than she would, prolonging the recount process is not going to accomplish anything, and even if he were to prevent her from being seated on time (a la Franken), it won't really politically benefit the GOP, so there is not even a cynical partisan reason for him to hang on.

That is all.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

"Paycheck Fairness" Act Fails - Good.

I think that the biggest problem with the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is the one laid out by Attorney Lawrence Lorber:

what is going to happen is inevitably you will move toward a very rigid civil-service-like pay system, and there won't be any opportunity for significant merit-based raises... What you will have to do is assure that when you give increases you don't wind up with some sort of a pay differential, and you do that by not giving pay increases or by creating superficial promotions."

That is all.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Three Cheers for James Blunt

I never thought much of his singing, but if, as the BBC Reports, he was willing to defy General Insano's order to start World War III, then something is right with him in my book!

That is all.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Gay Rights-ers Real Goal: Destroy All Opposition

Christians are no longer allowed to adopt in Britain unless they surrender to secular humanist morality.

And notice the weasel words that Ben Summerskill uses to justify the policy:

"‘Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr and Mrs Johns’s views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st.’"

Translation: Because we have got some Christians (or least soi disant Christians) to reject Biblical teaching on homosexuality, those doctrines are no longer to be considered part of Christianity. Moreover, the existence of non-traditional teachings invalidates the right to hold traditional teachings; a particular teaching cannot be considered part of your religion as long as we can get someone who claims to belong to your religion to reject it.

This sleight of hand happens frequently, when someone who criticizes a policy for violating their religious beliefs is pointed towards another person ostensibly of the same religion who supports the policy, as if that someone's belief invalidates everyone's who disagrees with him. It is as if freedom of religion only means freedom to identify as a particular creed rather than freedom to hold one's own particular beliefs.

Of course, I suppose that people who defend this policy will remind me that anyone who rejects the sexual revolution is automatically an oppressor and has no rights.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.

That is all.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

The Austrian Concept of Inflationary Fed Policy in a Nutshell

A comment by "Wandarin" on one of Steve Sailer's posts:

"I'm confused by how this QE actually works in actual actuality"

Imagine a large hot-air balloon carrying a bunch of people with a gigantic hole in it. The person in charge of flying the balloon could:

a) Land, fix the hole, then take off again.
b) Keep firing the gas cannister thereby keeping the balloon in the air as long as possible before the gas runs out and the balloon suffers a catastrophic crash.

Now imagine the person in charge of the gas cannister:
a) Is responsible for the hole in the balloon and will be found out if the balloon lands.
b) Has a parachute
c) Gets money for every second the balloon stays in the air.

That is all.
There was an error in this gadget