I was thinking that Obama's win in South Carolina is a little like Mitt's win in Nevadda. Both won majorities in these respective states, in fact Mitt and Obama both won about the same percentage (Mitt's win seemed bigger because the remaining votewas split between more candidates). In addition, both had wins that were to some extent affected by identity politics, with Obama winning 78% of the black vote (~50% of voters in SC, I think) and Mitt 94% of the Mormon vote (25% of voters in NV).
The big obvious difference is that Mitt's win was only increased by the identity issue while Obama's was driven entirely by it, with Obama coming in third among white voters while Mitt still would have beaten the second place contender (my man Ron Paul) 2-to-1 amongst non-Mormon voters.
We will see how it goes.
That is all.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Ron Paul Shafted in Debates and Media
What is very interesting about Ron Paul is how unfair the media have been to him in the debates, and in particular, how the media are now all pulling a Fox and trying to ignore him.
For example, in the October CNBC debate, Ron Paul got less time than Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo or Hunter, despite the fact that he had a higher fundraising haul n the 3rd quarter than any of them.
Then, yesterday, he received the least time of any of the GOP candidates in the MSNBC debate, despite the fact that he has beaten Rudy Giuliani in all but one (maybe two, I don't know about Wyoming) of the contests held so far.
And no one is discussing him anymore. After the debate yesterday, almost no mention of him was made until the text poll rankings came up.
Also, note how no one talked about the GOP part of the Nevada caucuses except to mention the winner, as Vox Day pointed out:
It's always easy to tell how Ron Paul does in a primary; you need merely count the number of finishers reported, then add one. If this means the media has to fail to report any of the finishers from second to sixth place, as was the case with the Nevada caucuses this weekend, well, that just leaves that much more space to anoint this week's "frontrunner."
And let's not forget the near blackout of Louisiana's caucuses, where Paul either did very well, or did even better.
That is all.
For example, in the October CNBC debate, Ron Paul got less time than Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo or Hunter, despite the fact that he had a higher fundraising haul n the 3rd quarter than any of them.
Then, yesterday, he received the least time of any of the GOP candidates in the MSNBC debate, despite the fact that he has beaten Rudy Giuliani in all but one (maybe two, I don't know about Wyoming) of the contests held so far.
And no one is discussing him anymore. After the debate yesterday, almost no mention of him was made until the text poll rankings came up.
Also, note how no one talked about the GOP part of the Nevada caucuses except to mention the winner, as Vox Day pointed out:
It's always easy to tell how Ron Paul does in a primary; you need merely count the number of finishers reported, then add one. If this means the media has to fail to report any of the finishers from second to sixth place, as was the case with the Nevada caucuses this weekend, well, that just leaves that much more space to anoint this week's "frontrunner."
And let's not forget the near blackout of Louisiana's caucuses, where Paul either did very well, or did even better.
That is all.
The Problem with Stimulus
What the President and Congress are proposing as an "economic stimulus package" has one terrible downside: they are, in the end, just shuffling money around.
No one is actually increasing the amount that the U.S. is producing. No one is cutting spending on something wasteful and letting taxpayers use it instead. No one is trying to increase investment by freeing up funds from the insane Iraq War.
No, the government is just giving everyone money it must print or borrow from foreign countries to everybody with the hope that we will use it to consume enough to mask the economic problems that are coming - actually, most of them probably are stupid enough to think it will actually work.
We need to bring the troops home from not just Iraq, but Korea and Europe as well. That would be a real economic stimulus.
That is all.
No one is actually increasing the amount that the U.S. is producing. No one is cutting spending on something wasteful and letting taxpayers use it instead. No one is trying to increase investment by freeing up funds from the insane Iraq War.
No, the government is just giving everyone money it must print or borrow from foreign countries to everybody with the hope that we will use it to consume enough to mask the economic problems that are coming - actually, most of them probably are stupid enough to think it will actually work.
We need to bring the troops home from not just Iraq, but Korea and Europe as well. That would be a real economic stimulus.
That is all.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
We're Number One Four! We're Number Four!
Paul is in fourth place in Michigan with 6% of the vote - ahead of Thompson and Giuliani! Yay!
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Problem with Liberals
Is that they think that every problem requires the government to engineer your neighborhood, your environment, your school in order to make it fit their idea of social justice. They won't just let you alone to live in peace.
This post (which I found from a link on Alas) is, I think, a good example of this.
That is all.
This post (which I found from a link on Alas) is, I think, a good example of this.
That is all.
Ron Paul's NH Performance
Gary North on the "rEVOLution", and a link to a suggestion that there was ballot tampering in New Hampshire as an explanation of the poll/election results discrepancies.
I don't know if there was any fraud or not, but I do think that the system should be as transparent as possible to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
More from Dave Trotter.
That is all.
I don't know if there was any fraud or not, but I do think that the system should be as transparent as possible to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
More from Dave Trotter.
That is all.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Blog of the Week Feature is on Hiatus
I need some time to find more good blogs, and then it takes a little while for me to Photoshop the graphic links, so I will suspend "blog of the week" for a the time being. I have only updated it once in the past year or so anyway.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Ron Paul Racism Brouhaha
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Constitution Party Ballot Access
As best I can figure from the Ballot Access website and the Constitution Party emails I have received,
This:
is the current ballot access map.
That is all.
P.S. I am too tired to find the specific pages that this map was derived from, so the links are to the websites' front pages.
This:
is the current ballot access map.
That is all.
P.S. I am too tired to find the specific pages that this map was derived from, so the links are to the websites' front pages.
Monday, January 07, 2008
"Mythical" Success?
Michael Schwartz offers an alternate theory as to the decreased violence in Anbar, and quotes to a list of arguments Juan Cole made against the idea that recent trends show that victory is imminent.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Ouch.
Paul came in fifth in Iowa. Oh, well, it was fairly close, I think.
On to New Hampshire!
That is all.
On to New Hampshire!
That is all.
Happy New Year
Sorry for lack of blogging recently. Been away from my computer for a while. Then I had to go back to work.
Now, for a blog post that is not about blogging: for what it is worth, I predict a 3rd place finish in the Iowa caucus for Ron Paul.
That is all.
Now, for a blog post that is not about blogging: for what it is worth, I predict a 3rd place finish in the Iowa caucus for Ron Paul.
That is all.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Happy Old Year
Figured I'd get in one more post before the end of the year.
Here's hoping for a great 2008!
That is all.
Here's hoping for a great 2008!
That is all.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Incandescent Light Ban
This is stupid.
And I say that as someone who uses only fluorescent bulbs - other than in a few places where the bulbs are on a dimmer or recessed (i.e. where the fluorescent bulbs say that should not be used, although I suppose dimmable and recessed-lighting safe fluorescent bulbs will probably soon be widelty available)* and for my Christmas decorations (I'll probably eventually switch to LEDs, after my current crop of bulbs dies out).
That is all.
*I have dimmable fluorescent bulbs for a lamp, but I don't know of any dimmable bulbs with traditional connectors.
And I say that as someone who uses only fluorescent bulbs - other than in a few places where the bulbs are on a dimmer or recessed (i.e. where the fluorescent bulbs say that should not be used, although I suppose dimmable and recessed-lighting safe fluorescent bulbs will probably soon be widelty available)* and for my Christmas decorations (I'll probably eventually switch to LEDs, after my current crop of bulbs dies out).
That is all.
*I have dimmable fluorescent bulbs for a lamp, but I don't know of any dimmable bulbs with traditional connectors.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Issues with a Co-Ed Military
Pregnancy, for one.
Yhis type of report indicates, if nothing else, that sexual integration of the military has not been as consequence-free as people would like to make it seem; which would tend to suggest that accepting open homosexuals into the military might also not be as consequence-free as its advocates claim.
That is all.
Yhis type of report indicates, if nothing else, that sexual integration of the military has not been as consequence-free as people would like to make it seem; which would tend to suggest that accepting open homosexuals into the military might also not be as consequence-free as its advocates claim.
That is all.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Tea Party Still Going
2 more hours.
Paul is at $5.2 million. Just a million more and we beat Hillary for one-day fundraising!
I donated $38.00. (On top of 4 previous donations for the 2nd quarter, 3rd quarter, Guy Fawkes Day, and a small donation to get some bumper stickers totaling - let's just say well past reportable levels).
If you haven't given yet, dig deep! (You can also call 1-703-248-9115).
That is all.
Paul is at $5.2 million. Just a million more and we beat Hillary for one-day fundraising!
I donated $38.00. (On top of 4 previous donations for the 2nd quarter, 3rd quarter, Guy Fawkes Day, and a small donation to get some bumper stickers totaling - let's just say well past reportable levels).
If you haven't given yet, dig deep! (You can also call 1-703-248-9115).
That is all.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tea Party
Dear readers:
Remember to donate to Ron Paul on Dec. 16 (Sunday) in order to help make the "Tea Party of 2007" the most successful fundraising day ever.
So far, more than 30,000 have pledged to donate $100 - if everyone of the pledgers does this, that would be $3 million.
Pledge or don't pledge, donate what you can on Sunday, either online or by phone using a credit or debit card (check donations can't be guaranteed to come in on a certain day, they are welcome, but they won't cause the same amount of buzz as a "moneybomb").
Sad to say, but I won't be able to donate too much this time around. I have had a number of bills come due and am too tapped out to give more than $10.00 or $20.00. However, I have alraedy donated enough to Paul that my donations will have to be reported to the FEC (I'll be no more specific than that), so I don't think that my asking others to donate can reasonably be seen as "do as I say, not as I do."
That is all.
Remember to donate to Ron Paul on Dec. 16 (Sunday) in order to help make the "Tea Party of 2007" the most successful fundraising day ever.
So far, more than 30,000 have pledged to donate $100 - if everyone of the pledgers does this, that would be $3 million.
Pledge or don't pledge, donate what you can on Sunday, either online or by phone using a credit or debit card (check donations can't be guaranteed to come in on a certain day, they are welcome, but they won't cause the same amount of buzz as a "moneybomb").
Sad to say, but I won't be able to donate too much this time around. I have had a number of bills come due and am too tapped out to give more than $10.00 or $20.00. However, I have alraedy donated enough to Paul that my donations will have to be reported to the FEC (I'll be no more specific than that), so I don't think that my asking others to donate can reasonably be seen as "do as I say, not as I do."
That is all.
On the Latest GOP Presidential Debate
James Wolcott:
Ron Paul, whose answers are concise, emphatic, and deviate from the establishment orthodoxy regarding the ever expanding reach of American Empire. His devotion to the Constitution has the spike of authenticity, whereas you can imagine Giuliani treating it like a Chinese menu, picking and choosing which articles he's willing to abide by.
Even leftists are impressed by Ron.
(I know I found this post of Wolcott's through a link, as I don't read him generally, but I cannot remember or retrieve the linking website, so thanx and a tip o' the hat to somebody).
That is all.
Ron Paul, whose answers are concise, emphatic, and deviate from the establishment orthodoxy regarding the ever expanding reach of American Empire. His devotion to the Constitution has the spike of authenticity, whereas you can imagine Giuliani treating it like a Chinese menu, picking and choosing which articles he's willing to abide by.
Even leftists are impressed by Ron.
(I know I found this post of Wolcott's through a link, as I don't read him generally, but I cannot remember or retrieve the linking website, so thanx and a tip o' the hat to somebody).
That is all.
Iraqi Refugees Returning - Mixed News
Refugees are returning as things get more peaceful, but some of the returns are due less to homesickness than to the increasing unfriendliness in the refugees' host countries.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Thoreau at Unqualified Offerings.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Thoreau at Unqualified Offerings.
That is all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Alas, We're Morons
More fun from Alas, a Blog, specifically Rachel s.:
Disclaimer: I think racial DNA tests are absurd, and are based primarily on social notions of race, not actual distinct genetic and biological human categories.
Yes, because DNA tests measure social notions, and not biology.
So apparently it has not been discovered that he has 16 times as many black-origin genes as other whites, but has 16 times as much "social notion" as other whites.
On the other hand, Steve Sailer has a good reason to be skeptical of the test results: at the individual level, these tests are less reliable than when combining the tests of a group, because there is so much more "noise" the smaller the sample size.
Too bad, I was hoping Watson might be able to reclaim the term "octoroon" for his people.
That is all.
Disclaimer: I think racial DNA tests are absurd, and are based primarily on social notions of race, not actual distinct genetic and biological human categories.
Yes, because DNA tests measure social notions, and not biology.
So apparently it has not been discovered that he has 16 times as many black-origin genes as other whites, but has 16 times as much "social notion" as other whites.
On the other hand, Steve Sailer has a good reason to be skeptical of the test results: at the individual level, these tests are less reliable than when combining the tests of a group, because there is so much more "noise" the smaller the sample size.
Too bad, I was hoping Watson might be able to reclaim the term "octoroon" for his people.
That is all.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Empirical Questions are Best Resolved through Name-Calling
Mandolin at Alas, a Blog displays typical leftism.
As usual, anyone who dissents is banned, and they continually attempt to answer scientific questions by to their holy book.
Full disclosure: I do think that there is an a gap in average intelligence between people of African and people of European heritage, and that some of that gap is genetic. On the issue of a whether or not there is a correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality, I have no position, because I have never bothered to study it in any detail and because most of the proclamations that I have heard from either side of the debate come from people who were too biased one way or the other for me to trust them without looking into the matter myself.
That is all.
As usual, anyone who dissents is banned, and they continually attempt to answer scientific questions by to their holy book.
Full disclosure: I do think that there is an a gap in average intelligence between people of African and people of European heritage, and that some of that gap is genetic. On the issue of a whether or not there is a correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality, I have no position, because I have never bothered to study it in any detail and because most of the proclamations that I have heard from either side of the debate come from people who were too biased one way or the other for me to trust them without looking into the matter myself.
That is all.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
"Progressive" DoubleThink
I have an interesting debate with some liberals about the nature of freedom and of imposition.
From his answers, it is obvious that "Tankard" either is being deliberately dishonest, or else he doesn't seem to grasp what I am arguing about. He is apparently under the impression that the issue I am arguing is whether or not embryos are people, whereas what I am arguing about is whether or not forcing a taxpayer who believs embryos are people to fund embryonic stem cell research is forcing one's beliefs on the taxpayer. My argument, it should be noted, is not based on what the basis of the belief about the embryo is, or on whether or not the belief is correct, or on whether or not the person supporting federal funding is right or wrong to do so. I am just trying to et soemone to admit that forcing a person to fund something he doesn't believe in is imposing your beliefs on him, and these people are either so obtuse or so dishonest that they cannot admit this.
That is all.
From his answers, it is obvious that "Tankard" either is being deliberately dishonest, or else he doesn't seem to grasp what I am arguing about. He is apparently under the impression that the issue I am arguing is whether or not embryos are people, whereas what I am arguing about is whether or not forcing a taxpayer who believs embryos are people to fund embryonic stem cell research is forcing one's beliefs on the taxpayer. My argument, it should be noted, is not based on what the basis of the belief about the embryo is, or on whether or not the belief is correct, or on whether or not the person supporting federal funding is right or wrong to do so. I am just trying to et soemone to admit that forcing a person to fund something he doesn't believe in is imposing your beliefs on him, and these people are either so obtuse or so dishonest that they cannot admit this.
That is all.
The Greatest Poem of All Time
Outside of the Bible, that is.
I vote for The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling.
I really think that the five words would make a great book title or book series title:
"with terror and slaughter return."
That is all.
I vote for The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling.
I really think that the five words would make a great book title or book series title:
"with terror and slaughter return."
That is all.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Ron Paul's Next "MoneyBomb"
Sunday, December 16.
As I understand it, the other reported "Ron Paul Day," Saturday, December 15 (Bill of Rights Day), is a rally, not a moneybomb, so if you want your donations concentrated on one day, for the maximum media impact, donate the next day instead.
That is all.
As I understand it, the other reported "Ron Paul Day," Saturday, December 15 (Bill of Rights Day), is a rally, not a moneybomb, so if you want your donations concentrated on one day, for the maximum media impact, donate the next day instead.
That is all.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Sorry for Absence
I was a home (w/o internet access) from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving until the Wednesday after, and on Friday (that is, yesterday, not the Friday after Thanksgiving) I had lithotripsy (they broke up kidney stone using soundwaves, what I like to call a "sonic laser"), and I am still recovering. So probably no or very light posting until sometime in the middle of next week.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Key to Ron Paul's Success
While there is a tendency for Ron Paul supportes to argue that his amazing statistics in terms of money-raised, and his recent surge in the polls (which is impressive given his initial status as a third-tier candidate) is just that he has a good message, it is, I think, more complicated than that.
The fact of the matter is, despite the de-centralized nature of the Ron Paul for President campaign (i.e. including the informal campaign, not just just the official one), it did not come out of nowhere.
The idea that Ron Paul simply spoke truth and suddenly people listened, while attractive, and not entiurely false, is not the whole picture.
Yes, Paul has good, attractive, ideas (I would argue that 90% or better of the time he has the right ideas), and that is what has attracted people to him and is the ultimate source of the enthusiasm for him. However, the idea that without any infrastructure, formal or informal, that he could have had the single biggest internet fundraising day of any candidate (or the bigges one-day fundraiser of any sort for a Republican if you count only actual donations and not pledges) is simply incorrect and, if you think about it, ludicrous.
What it comes down to is that the infrastructure for the Paul campaign has been building since at least 1999, when LewRockwell.com went online. Or perhaps even earlier in the mid-1990s when Antiwar.com was created. Or maybe in 1982 when the Ludwig von Mises Institute was founded.
The point is that for a long time, people have been working to build up a movement for Austrian economics and against foreign interventionism. This movement has slowly built up the infrastructure needed to support a movement toward freer markets, sound money, and non-interventionism abroad. We (by late 2000.early 2001 I had become one of them) already had enough infrastructure in place by 9/11/01 to be able to provide a counterbalance to the pro-statist forces that dominated the debate over the next year, and we were poised to strike at the arguments for the Iraq War and to critique the war in real time when it happened. (Not that I am happy for the Iraq War as a chance to pimp my political positions; but given that the war was going to occur, it was good that we were ready when the time came to disseminate our critiques of the policy).
Pat Buchanan's presidential runs, to some extent, and the founding of The American Conservative, came from a similar persuasion, at least on foreign policy, and wound up overlapping with much of the movement by the time TAC got off the ground. Definitely TAC is one of the more prominent publishers of paleolibertarians, and can be thought of as containing part of the extended infrastructure of the Austro-libertarian movement.
The point is, by the time that Ron Paul decided to run for the 2008 presidential election, there was already a large infrastructure (yes, I like to use that term) of supporters for the types of policies he espouses. These people were well-connected by the internet, and many of them were looking for someone to lead the movement or to run for president to try and make their ideas policy (and ultimately of course, we were/are looking for people to run for other political offices as well). To some extent, this grass-roots campaign selected PPaul as their standard-bearer and are the ones who encouraged him to run.
So what Paul has done to a large extent is tapped into the grass-roots infrastructure that already exists to support his ideas. Yes, he did this largely simply by expressing his ideas, which the grassroots agreed with. But, ultimately, were Austro-libertarians not already connected and semi-organized through the efforts of Llewellyn Rockwell, were anti-interventionist conservatives not united by The American Conservative, were both anti-interentionist libertarians not gathered by Antiwar.com, were not a thousand other similar sites up, all interconnected into a community, he could have railed all day against the Fed, the income tax, and the war and virtually no one would have noticed.
What does this prove, in the end? Well, if Paul's campaign wins the nomination, or even just does incredibly well in the process, it shows that organizing a grassroots movement around ideas, even "fringe" ideas with little following, can pay off - big time. So don't be discouraged if you fight for what you believe is right and it seems lonely. It seemed lonely for the Austro-libertarians at one time. But not anymore.
That is all.
The fact of the matter is, despite the de-centralized nature of the Ron Paul for President campaign (i.e. including the informal campaign, not just just the official one), it did not come out of nowhere.
The idea that Ron Paul simply spoke truth and suddenly people listened, while attractive, and not entiurely false, is not the whole picture.
Yes, Paul has good, attractive, ideas (I would argue that 90% or better of the time he has the right ideas), and that is what has attracted people to him and is the ultimate source of the enthusiasm for him. However, the idea that without any infrastructure, formal or informal, that he could have had the single biggest internet fundraising day of any candidate (or the bigges one-day fundraiser of any sort for a Republican if you count only actual donations and not pledges) is simply incorrect and, if you think about it, ludicrous.
What it comes down to is that the infrastructure for the Paul campaign has been building since at least 1999, when LewRockwell.com went online. Or perhaps even earlier in the mid-1990s when Antiwar.com was created. Or maybe in 1982 when the Ludwig von Mises Institute was founded.
The point is that for a long time, people have been working to build up a movement for Austrian economics and against foreign interventionism. This movement has slowly built up the infrastructure needed to support a movement toward freer markets, sound money, and non-interventionism abroad. We (by late 2000.early 2001 I had become one of them) already had enough infrastructure in place by 9/11/01 to be able to provide a counterbalance to the pro-statist forces that dominated the debate over the next year, and we were poised to strike at the arguments for the Iraq War and to critique the war in real time when it happened. (Not that I am happy for the Iraq War as a chance to pimp my political positions; but given that the war was going to occur, it was good that we were ready when the time came to disseminate our critiques of the policy).
Pat Buchanan's presidential runs, to some extent, and the founding of The American Conservative, came from a similar persuasion, at least on foreign policy, and wound up overlapping with much of the movement by the time TAC got off the ground. Definitely TAC is one of the more prominent publishers of paleolibertarians, and can be thought of as containing part of the extended infrastructure of the Austro-libertarian movement.
The point is, by the time that Ron Paul decided to run for the 2008 presidential election, there was already a large infrastructure (yes, I like to use that term) of supporters for the types of policies he espouses. These people were well-connected by the internet, and many of them were looking for someone to lead the movement or to run for president to try and make their ideas policy (and ultimately of course, we were/are looking for people to run for other political offices as well). To some extent, this grass-roots campaign selected PPaul as their standard-bearer and are the ones who encouraged him to run.
So what Paul has done to a large extent is tapped into the grass-roots infrastructure that already exists to support his ideas. Yes, he did this largely simply by expressing his ideas, which the grassroots agreed with. But, ultimately, were Austro-libertarians not already connected and semi-organized through the efforts of Llewellyn Rockwell, were anti-interventionist conservatives not united by The American Conservative, were both anti-interentionist libertarians not gathered by Antiwar.com, were not a thousand other similar sites up, all interconnected into a community, he could have railed all day against the Fed, the income tax, and the war and virtually no one would have noticed.
What does this prove, in the end? Well, if Paul's campaign wins the nomination, or even just does incredibly well in the process, it shows that organizing a grassroots movement around ideas, even "fringe" ideas with little following, can pay off - big time. So don't be discouraged if you fight for what you believe is right and it seems lonely. It seemed lonely for the Austro-libertarians at one time. But not anymore.
That is all.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Some Paul Proposals Too Good to be True?
Michael Dobbs questions the feasibility of Paul's income tax proposals.
This is a real concern. Not that I think that Paul is being dishonest, but he may have been using erroneous statistics initially and his actual budget plans may not have been formulated completely yet. However, if he does well enough in the coming weeks to become a real contender in Iowa and New Hampshire, I am confident that this type of thing will come up enough that he will become more specific.
In any case, I am still supporting Paul and have confidence that as he has more exposure his positions will, of necessity, get more polished and specific.
And none of this negates the great work he has done getting his issues (non-interventionism, sound money) a hearing that they would otherwise not get.
Added: And as some of the commenters in the thread pointed out, Paul would work toward the gradual reduction (moving toward elimination) of government health care spending and presumably a reduction of our military outside of the narrow issue of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granted, I don't think that we could get rid of the income tax during one or even two Paul terms, unless of course we raised other taxes greatly, and I do not think that we could eliminate all income-based taxes (e.g. Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes) without some increase in our customs, tariffs, and excises, but I think that Paul would push us in the right direction.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Andrew Sullivan.
That is all.
This is a real concern. Not that I think that Paul is being dishonest, but he may have been using erroneous statistics initially and his actual budget plans may not have been formulated completely yet. However, if he does well enough in the coming weeks to become a real contender in Iowa and New Hampshire, I am confident that this type of thing will come up enough that he will become more specific.
In any case, I am still supporting Paul and have confidence that as he has more exposure his positions will, of necessity, get more polished and specific.
And none of this negates the great work he has done getting his issues (non-interventionism, sound money) a hearing that they would otherwise not get.
Added: And as some of the commenters in the thread pointed out, Paul would work toward the gradual reduction (moving toward elimination) of government health care spending and presumably a reduction of our military outside of the narrow issue of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granted, I don't think that we could get rid of the income tax during one or even two Paul terms, unless of course we raised other taxes greatly, and I do not think that we could eliminate all income-based taxes (e.g. Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes) without some increase in our customs, tariffs, and excises, but I think that Paul would push us in the right direction.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Andrew Sullivan.
That is all.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
The Devil is in the Details, and in the Dollar
Ron Paul on dollars and war.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to bbartlog on the comments at Henley's blog.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to bbartlog on the comments at Henley's blog.
That is all.
How Cute
Dick Morris worries that the Rudy Giuliani might not get the GOP nomination.
As a Rudy-disliker, I am happy with this, of course.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Daniel Larison.
That is all.
As a Rudy-disliker, I am happy with this, of course.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Daniel Larison.
That is all.
The Editors at National Review Don't Get It
Being worried about Federal Reserve policy and its recent rate cuts, they neglect to understand that this is the problem with the Federal Reserve itself.
The rest of the world saw this capitulation to the market’s nervous Nellies as inflationary, and became less willing to hold dollars. If the Fed had acted correctly, responding to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind, the dollar would be stronger today, and closer to its intrinsic value.
What does "the intrinsic value" of the dollar mean? The dollar is worth what you can get for it. If the dollar loses value, it loses "intrinsic value." There is no platonic dollar to which our dollar aspires. People often accuse goldbugs of not understanding money and of thinking that gold has some magic value that makes it "real" money (we don't, but that's an issue for another day). Obviously, some fiat-bugs have this problem.
Small deviations from free-market principle can have outsized consequences.
Government-imposed fiat money is a deviation from the free-market. Honestly, I fail to see how one can characterize any of our government's policies as "small deviations" from the free market. Unless one is an anarchist or severe minarchist, one will invariably be offering rather large deviations from the free market. It is ridiculous to portray the free market as delicate and at the same time advocate a large, activist government at any level.
In particular, once you accept a large, ultimately government-controlled bank as the institution which controls the supply of currency, how you can discriminate betwen their policies as free market and non-free market is beyond me. Arguing that its policy should respond "to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind" is arguing about how it should interfere with the economy, not about whether it should.
That is all.
The rest of the world saw this capitulation to the market’s nervous Nellies as inflationary, and became less willing to hold dollars. If the Fed had acted correctly, responding to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind, the dollar would be stronger today, and closer to its intrinsic value.
What does "the intrinsic value" of the dollar mean? The dollar is worth what you can get for it. If the dollar loses value, it loses "intrinsic value." There is no platonic dollar to which our dollar aspires. People often accuse goldbugs of not understanding money and of thinking that gold has some magic value that makes it "real" money (we don't, but that's an issue for another day). Obviously, some fiat-bugs have this problem.
Small deviations from free-market principle can have outsized consequences.
Government-imposed fiat money is a deviation from the free-market. Honestly, I fail to see how one can characterize any of our government's policies as "small deviations" from the free market. Unless one is an anarchist or severe minarchist, one will invariably be offering rather large deviations from the free market. It is ridiculous to portray the free market as delicate and at the same time advocate a large, activist government at any level.
In particular, once you accept a large, ultimately government-controlled bank as the institution which controls the supply of currency, how you can discriminate betwen their policies as free market and non-free market is beyond me. Arguing that its policy should respond "to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind" is arguing about how it should interfere with the economy, not about whether it should.
That is all.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Good Point at TPMCafe
One big reason for the housing crisis (specficially in this case the crisis for African-Americans), is that we were encouraging people to buy homes who shouldn't have done so - at least at the time (alternately, we encouraged those who had reason to buy a home to buy a bigger home than they could reasonably afford.
There's a great comment on the post pointing out that a house is a depreciating asset (i.e. not an investment in the traditional sense). This is why it is stupid to buy houses with the intent of making money on them. Yes, it is a good idea to make certain that when you buy a house, should the need arise you can sell it and so not "eat" the entire price of the house; but buying a house primarily with the intent to sell it when the price rises is, in most cases, insane. And in any sane economy, very few people are in a position where doing so is a reasonable plan.
That is all.
There's a great comment on the post pointing out that a house is a depreciating asset (i.e. not an investment in the traditional sense). This is why it is stupid to buy houses with the intent of making money on them. Yes, it is a good idea to make certain that when you buy a house, should the need arise you can sell it and so not "eat" the entire price of the house; but buying a house primarily with the intent to sell it when the price rises is, in most cases, insane. And in any sane economy, very few people are in a position where doing so is a reasonable plan.
That is all.
Monday, November 12, 2007
More on the Gold Standard
I'll have to try to discuss these articles later, you know, after I discuss all of the other things I planned to discuss but never got around to.
Jim Henley, Megan McArdle, Tyler Cowen.
Suffice it to say, I agree with Ron Paul and disagree with those cited above.
That is all.
Jim Henley, Megan McArdle, Tyler Cowen.
Suffice it to say, I agree with Ron Paul and disagree with those cited above.
That is all.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Mitt's, Huck's, and Arthur Branch's friends are trying to repeat the November 5 success of Ron.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to LewRockwell blog here and here.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to LewRockwell blog here and here.
That is all.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Kucinich vs. Ron Paul
I have read a lot of people asking why Ron Paul is getting so much support but not Dennis Kucinich. After all, Kucinich's idea are not that much more "wacky" than PAul's, and he is also antiwar? Why the tremendous appeal of Paul to conservatives (and perhaps some liberal crossovers) but no such appeal for Kucinich?
I think there are several reasons, but the primary one is that Dennis Kucinich is not really to the Democrats what Paul is to the GOP. Kucinich is more like their Tancredo, a more purified. distilled version of what hte other Democrats believe, or claim to.
All of the Democrats in the race are antiwar or pretend to be (you can determine who you think is which for yourselves). At best, Kucinich can claim to be the more genuine liberal, sort of a reverse of Alan Keyes in 2000. Dissatisfied Democrats can still get a half-loaf with the other candidates with a better chance of winning.
But on the single most important issue of the last few years, the Iraq War, Ron Paul is the only candidate to speak up for the right wing antiwarrior. People who cannot stomach the Democrats but who want a humble foreign policy have only one choice. Listening to Paul at a Republican debate is far more electrifying than listening to Kucinich, because he stands against the entire pack of competitors.
Kucinich and Paul? Kucinich is, as far as I can tell, a good and sincere person, albeit one whose ideas are far more left-wing than mine. But he is not the Democratic version of Paul.
That is all.
I think there are several reasons, but the primary one is that Dennis Kucinich is not really to the Democrats what Paul is to the GOP. Kucinich is more like their Tancredo, a more purified. distilled version of what hte other Democrats believe, or claim to.
All of the Democrats in the race are antiwar or pretend to be (you can determine who you think is which for yourselves). At best, Kucinich can claim to be the more genuine liberal, sort of a reverse of Alan Keyes in 2000. Dissatisfied Democrats can still get a half-loaf with the other candidates with a better chance of winning.
But on the single most important issue of the last few years, the Iraq War, Ron Paul is the only candidate to speak up for the right wing antiwarrior. People who cannot stomach the Democrats but who want a humble foreign policy have only one choice. Listening to Paul at a Republican debate is far more electrifying than listening to Kucinich, because he stands against the entire pack of competitors.
Kucinich and Paul? Kucinich is, as far as I can tell, a good and sincere person, albeit one whose ideas are far more left-wing than mine. But he is not the Democratic version of Paul.
That is all.
When Farah's Right, He's Right
On the Robertson sell-out.
I totally agree with him about hte family channel. Some of the movies and shows they have shown on there since Robertson sold it do not belong on any network calling itself "family."
Granted, I am not denying that I watch some racy shows (Rescue Me, for example). But FX does not claim to be "family-friendly." I think that Robertson has sold everything out for power and influence.
That is all.
I totally agree with him about hte family channel. Some of the movies and shows they have shown on there since Robertson sold it do not belong on any network calling itself "family."
Granted, I am not denying that I watch some racy shows (Rescue Me, for example). But FX does not claim to be "family-friendly." I think that Robertson has sold everything out for power and influence.
That is all.
More on Constitutional Plan B
Ballot access for the Constitution Party as of 10/31/07, according to Ballot Access News:
Changes:
Petitioning for Missouri and Arkansas is done.
Iowa, South Dakota, and West Virginia are all further along in their petition drive, although this does not change the map color at all.
That is all.
Changes:
Petitioning for Missouri and Arkansas is done.
Iowa, South Dakota, and West Virginia are all further along in their petition drive, although this does not change the map color at all.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
There's Still Time
To donate to Ron Paul on November 5th, towards his goal of making this the biggest fundraising day for a presidential candidate EVER!
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
Once More About Andrew Sullivan
A few months ago I wrote:
It is obvious from the context that he considers any Christian who actually believes the Bible to be a "Christianist," one who perverts Christianity into his own political philosophy, whereas authentic Christianity, in Sullivan's mind, is apparently that which okays whatever his "personal experiences" tell him is okay.
Well, in a recent post, Sully approvingly quotes a reader:
Your reader is right to say that Jesus came to bring division to the land. The problem with this fellow is that he is on the wrong side of the divide. Jesus did not condemn homosexuals. He stands with them, not against them... I empathize with your reader's dilemma in attempting to be a good Christian while asserting the immorality of homosexuality, but in the end, this is not possible. He is trying to be good. Unfortunately, he is simply wrong, as are those portions of the Bible which make such charges.
In other words, to be a good Christian, you must reject certain portions of the Bible. How you determine what these portions are is not mentioned, but I have a feeling that any passage that doesn't celebrate every possible sexual expression is fair game.
There is also more of the inane equating of love with approval:
[Jesus] stands in radical contrast to these attitudes. He did indeed bring about division, by rejecting intolerance and embracing the approach of unconditional love.
Jesus never preached unconditional approval of all personal behavior, which is what this person is equating with love. Nor was he particularly tolerant. In fact, in areas where he reinterpreted Old Testament Law (reinterpreted from the standard interpretations present at that place in time) he often interpreted it more strictly than was common in Israel at that time. (Don't look with lust, don't yell at your neighbor).
If this is apparently what passes for Christian teaching amongst a lot of people in the U.S. today, we are in for some serious problems.
That is all.
It is obvious from the context that he considers any Christian who actually believes the Bible to be a "Christianist," one who perverts Christianity into his own political philosophy, whereas authentic Christianity, in Sullivan's mind, is apparently that which okays whatever his "personal experiences" tell him is okay.
Well, in a recent post, Sully approvingly quotes a reader:
Your reader is right to say that Jesus came to bring division to the land. The problem with this fellow is that he is on the wrong side of the divide. Jesus did not condemn homosexuals. He stands with them, not against them... I empathize with your reader's dilemma in attempting to be a good Christian while asserting the immorality of homosexuality, but in the end, this is not possible. He is trying to be good. Unfortunately, he is simply wrong, as are those portions of the Bible which make such charges.
In other words, to be a good Christian, you must reject certain portions of the Bible. How you determine what these portions are is not mentioned, but I have a feeling that any passage that doesn't celebrate every possible sexual expression is fair game.
There is also more of the inane equating of love with approval:
[Jesus] stands in radical contrast to these attitudes. He did indeed bring about division, by rejecting intolerance and embracing the approach of unconditional love.
Jesus never preached unconditional approval of all personal behavior, which is what this person is equating with love. Nor was he particularly tolerant. In fact, in areas where he reinterpreted Old Testament Law (reinterpreted from the standard interpretations present at that place in time) he often interpreted it more strictly than was common in Israel at that time. (Don't look with lust, don't yell at your neighbor).
If this is apparently what passes for Christian teaching amongst a lot of people in the U.S. today, we are in for some serious problems.
That is all.
Strange Case
This is a strange case. Apparently, a judge decided that raping a prostitute constituted simple theft.
The argument for this, of course, is that she had already agreed to have sex with him, he just made her do it without getting paid, so in essence he simply took her money away. Yes, a woman can change her mind, but she didn't change her mind about the sex except to the extent that she didn't want to do it without pay. So in essence, the only difference between what she would have done and what he forced her to do is the lack of pay.
I think the relevant distinctions here are (a) the man took out the gun to force her to have sex rather than after sex in order to force her to leave without getting paid. So in essence, he didn't rob her of money, he forced her to do work after she said she would not. Forcing service under the threat of bodily harm is more akin to slavery than theft. (b) He forced to have sex with four men when she had only agreed to have sex with two. Seeing as she had never consented to having sex with more than two men, it cannot be said that she would have if he had paid her; therefore, the net effect may have been more than just taking away her revenue.
That is all.
The argument for this, of course, is that she had already agreed to have sex with him, he just made her do it without getting paid, so in essence he simply took her money away. Yes, a woman can change her mind, but she didn't change her mind about the sex except to the extent that she didn't want to do it without pay. So in essence, the only difference between what she would have done and what he forced her to do is the lack of pay.
I think the relevant distinctions here are (a) the man took out the gun to force her to have sex rather than after sex in order to force her to leave without getting paid. So in essence, he didn't rob her of money, he forced her to do work after she said she would not. Forcing service under the threat of bodily harm is more akin to slavery than theft. (b) He forced to have sex with four men when she had only agreed to have sex with two. Seeing as she had never consented to having sex with more than two men, it cannot be said that she would have if he had paid her; therefore, the net effect may have been more than just taking away her revenue.
That is all.
Dishonesty at WorldNetDaily
The gist of the facts presented in Aaron Klein's article on WorldNetDaily are that by going to foreign countries and bad-mouthing our president, celebrities are doing things that plese terrorists.
But Aaron Klein's use of the term "urging terrorists on" obviously gives the implication that these celebrities are actually telling terrorists to attack us, which is a lie.
There is also the not-so-subtle implication that criticizing Bush is tantamount to supporting the terrorists.
Despicable.
That is all.
But Aaron Klein's use of the term "urging terrorists on" obviously gives the implication that these celebrities are actually telling terrorists to attack us, which is a lie.
There is also the not-so-subtle implication that criticizing Bush is tantamount to supporting the terrorists.
Despicable.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wizard of Oz Fears
I am watching (on and off) Bravo's "100 Scariest Moments in Film."
They mention The Wizard of Oz, and I can't help but remember the scene that terrified me as a child, and which in fact, as I recall, made me quit watching once or twice.
It wasn't the monkeys, or the Winkies (the Yeo-he-ho soldiers), or the Witch.
It was the poppies.
Why? Because they were described as "posion," and I was terrified of poison.
That is all.
They mention The Wizard of Oz, and I can't help but remember the scene that terrified me as a child, and which in fact, as I recall, made me quit watching once or twice.
It wasn't the monkeys, or the Winkies (the Yeo-he-ho soldiers), or the Witch.
It was the poppies.
Why? Because they were described as "posion," and I was terrified of poison.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Andrew Sullivan's Strange Theology
This line from Andrew Sullivan's recent post on ex-gay McClurkin's appearance at an Obama rally:
No, he doesn't say anything homophobic as such. He uses the usual formula of loving those he wants to be other than they are - which is a very funny kind of love.
Does Sullivan think that it is impossible to love someone and at the same time believe that they have flaws that need to be corrected? He seems to imply that either you condone everythign a person does, or else you do not love them.
Of course, maybe his disagreement is that he thinks that homosexuality is not a thing you do, but who you are. But even if we assume that to be the case, can only morally neutral or morally positive attributes define one's identity? Do not people with tendencies that Andrew would agree are destructive exist (e.g. alcoholics, pedophiles)? Are these tendencies not part of the identity of such people? Would he insist that we encourage them not to change who they are? Alternately, would he insist that they should change, but that in saying so, he does not love them, and furthermore that he only loves them when they do?
Or does his idea that it is strange to claim to love someone and want them to change only apply to homosexuality?
It is one thing simply to claim that McClurkin is wrong to consider homosexuality sinful. In such a case, there is nothing inconsistent of unusual about McClurkin's position. There is nothing unusual about him loving people and at the same time wanting them to change aspects of their identity he considers sinful. This is not inconsistent even if the things he wants to change are fundamental aspects of their identity. The only issue here is whether his belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality is accurate or erroneous. Even if McClurkin is wrong, it does not make his love "a funny kind of love," it just means that his good intentions and love are directed erroneously due to a doctrinal error.
However, Andrew has gone beyond simply disagreeing with McClurkin about one piece of doctrine; he is essentially saying that if you love someone, you must condone everything they do. This either means condoning all behavior or not loving people until they measure up to whatever moral standards you believe exist.
Andrew is the one who is defining "love" strangely in this post.
That is all.
No, he doesn't say anything homophobic as such. He uses the usual formula of loving those he wants to be other than they are - which is a very funny kind of love.
Does Sullivan think that it is impossible to love someone and at the same time believe that they have flaws that need to be corrected? He seems to imply that either you condone everythign a person does, or else you do not love them.
Of course, maybe his disagreement is that he thinks that homosexuality is not a thing you do, but who you are. But even if we assume that to be the case, can only morally neutral or morally positive attributes define one's identity? Do not people with tendencies that Andrew would agree are destructive exist (e.g. alcoholics, pedophiles)? Are these tendencies not part of the identity of such people? Would he insist that we encourage them not to change who they are? Alternately, would he insist that they should change, but that in saying so, he does not love them, and furthermore that he only loves them when they do?
Or does his idea that it is strange to claim to love someone and want them to change only apply to homosexuality?
It is one thing simply to claim that McClurkin is wrong to consider homosexuality sinful. In such a case, there is nothing inconsistent of unusual about McClurkin's position. There is nothing unusual about him loving people and at the same time wanting them to change aspects of their identity he considers sinful. This is not inconsistent even if the things he wants to change are fundamental aspects of their identity. The only issue here is whether his belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality is accurate or erroneous. Even if McClurkin is wrong, it does not make his love "a funny kind of love," it just means that his good intentions and love are directed erroneously due to a doctrinal error.
However, Andrew has gone beyond simply disagreeing with McClurkin about one piece of doctrine; he is essentially saying that if you love someone, you must condone everything they do. This either means condoning all behavior or not loving people until they measure up to whatever moral standards you believe exist.
Andrew is the one who is defining "love" strangely in this post.
That is all.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Enemies of Free Speech
Charles Schumer of New York, Tom Harkin of Iowa,Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Thad Cochran of Mississippi have proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would give the Congress and state legislatures apparently unlimited authority to regulate campaign spending.
European-style unaccountable government, here we come...
That is all.
European-style unaccountable government, here we come...
That is all.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
More on the Constitution Party
Here is the electoral breakdown of this map.
On ballot: 157 electoral votes
Gathering signatures: 65 electoral votes
Not yet started: 148 electoral votes
Cannot start yet: 163 electoral votes
Uncertain status: 5 electoral votes
That is all.
On ballot: 157 electoral votes
Gathering signatures: 65 electoral votes
Not yet started: 148 electoral votes
Cannot start yet: 163 electoral votes
Uncertain status: 5 electoral votes
That is all.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Duncan Hunter
I must say that after the debate on Sunday, my opinion of Duncan Hunter has changed somewhat.
Despite the fact that I don't think I exactly agree with him on trade (I'm more toward free trade myself, although I think we may need some tariffs for revenue purposes), I think that his discussion of trade policy, particularly "mirror trade" did add something to the debate that was not added by any other candidate. So he is more than a shadow of Tancredo.
That is all.
Despite the fact that I don't think I exactly agree with him on trade (I'm more toward free trade myself, although I think we may need some tariffs for revenue purposes), I think that his discussion of trade policy, particularly "mirror trade" did add something to the debate that was not added by any other candidate. So he is more than a shadow of Tancredo.
That is all.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Constitution Party Ballot Access 2008
On the off chance that Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, I am still following the Constitution Party. (And givning it donations from time to time).
My only concern about the Paul campaign is that if it sucks up all of the money that would go to right-wing third paties, then the third parties might not have a chance to get ballot access if he is not nominated.
So here is my ballot access map as of August 2008. Data is from Ballot Access News.
Not bad for 15 months ahead of the election.
That is all.
My only concern about the Paul campaign is that if it sucks up all of the money that would go to right-wing third paties, then the third parties might not have a chance to get ballot access if he is not nominated.
So here is my ballot access map as of August 2008. Data is from Ballot Access News.
Not bad for 15 months ahead of the election.
That is all.
Ampersand Likes to See Whites Get Beaten Up by Blacks
He "really doesn't like" this Ted Rall cartoon, presumably because he finds it annoying that Ted Rall brings up the fact that the adolescents charged in the Jena Six incident BEAT A GUY UNCONSCIOUS.
He then prints a sappy passage from an "excellent post" by Elle PhD where Mychal Bell is referred to as "a child."
Apparently, Ampersand doesn't really care much about the victim of this beating, and probably thinks that he deserved it for being a privileged white guy. At least, he doesn't want anyone to bring up any inconvenient facts into his narrative of white = evil oppressor black = angelic victim.
That is all.
He then prints a sappy passage from an "excellent post" by Elle PhD where Mychal Bell is referred to as "a child."
Apparently, Ampersand doesn't really care much about the victim of this beating, and probably thinks that he deserved it for being a privileged white guy. At least, he doesn't want anyone to bring up any inconvenient facts into his narrative of white = evil oppressor black = angelic victim.
That is all.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Alas, A Blog Shows the True Face of Unadulterated Leftism
After asserting essentially that genetic differences between the races cannot even be considered, at least when talking about intelligence, Mandolin proceeds to prove my comment on evo-psych deniers:
Whenever someone denigrates evolutionary psychology, what they really mean is "I thought the whole point of evolution was just to deny God. I didn't think it was actually supposed to tell us anything."
And of course, the thread has the usual moderation disclaimer to make certain that they don't havce to deal with anyone questioning their precious suppositions (becausse leftists think that any disagreement must be due to the magical state called "privilege."
And, wouldn't you know it, Mandolin confirms one of John Savage's theories.
That is all.
Whenever someone denigrates evolutionary psychology, what they really mean is "I thought the whole point of evolution was just to deny God. I didn't think it was actually supposed to tell us anything."
And of course, the thread has the usual moderation disclaimer to make certain that they don't havce to deal with anyone questioning their precious suppositions (becausse leftists think that any disagreement must be due to the magical state called "privilege."
And, wouldn't you know it, Mandolin confirms one of John Savage's theories.
That is all.
African-American
I am starting to think that "African-American" (or "of African descent" when referring to non-Americans) is a better term to use than "black," despite its origins in politcal correctness.
This is because it frames the issue of race more appropriately, as one of ancestry rather than one of one particular physical difference. So people can't keep saying "duh- so you are saying that having darker skin causes behavioral differences?" No, darker skin is just one marker for race - which is about who your ancestors were, not about skin color, or hair shape, etc.
That is all.
This is because it frames the issue of race more appropriately, as one of ancestry rather than one of one particular physical difference. So people can't keep saying "duh- so you are saying that having darker skin causes behavioral differences?" No, darker skin is just one marker for race - which is about who your ancestors were, not about skin color, or hair shape, etc.
That is all.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
SubPrime Mortgages
Reading this, a cartoon came to mind that I read a few months ago on a liberal blog.
Looking at the cartoon, it is interesting to note the subtext: Everyone is entitled to a house and one cannot be secure without one, but not everyone is able to afford one under reasonable conditions (i.e. without paying astronomical rent). Therefore, everyone should be given a house, either in whole or in part (that is, subsidized), presumably by the government.
That's not exactly what is said, of course, but that is what the message amounts to.
The possibility that not everyone needs a house and that people ought to wait to get one does not appear to be the dominant mode of thought.
That is all.
Looking at the cartoon, it is interesting to note the subtext: Everyone is entitled to a house and one cannot be secure without one, but not everyone is able to afford one under reasonable conditions (i.e. without paying astronomical rent). Therefore, everyone should be given a house, either in whole or in part (that is, subsidized), presumably by the government.
That's not exactly what is said, of course, but that is what the message amounts to.
The possibility that not everyone needs a house and that people ought to wait to get one does not appear to be the dominant mode of thought.
That is all.
Thoughts About the GOP Race
Accoding to this, Sen. Brownback is planning on dropping out of the GOP race.
I think that this is a good idea. Moreover, I think that Brownback ought to endorse Mike Huckabee, as they seem to be the closest on the issues.
As I see it, Brownback and Duncan Hunter are essentially lesser versions of Huckabee and Tom Tancredo, respectively, and they do not add anything to the race. Therefore, unless they can show significant polling numbers, I see no reason for them to keep running (whereas if they had unique interesting positions, I could justify their staying in the race despite low poll numbers because of what they added to the debate; for example, Tom Tancredo brings up the big picture on immigration in a way that no other candidate does and Ron Paul brings up monetary policy and non-interventionism).
Hunter should drop out and endorse Tancredo, in my opinion.
It is, of course, more likely that Brownback will endorse one of the big three in hopes of kissing up to power, which is sad, because I think that Huckabee would add something interesting to the race if he could consolidate the "compassionate social conservative" vote.
Update: Andrew Sullivan seems to be suggesting the same thing as I am about Brownback vis a vis Huckabee.
That is all.
I think that this is a good idea. Moreover, I think that Brownback ought to endorse Mike Huckabee, as they seem to be the closest on the issues.
As I see it, Brownback and Duncan Hunter are essentially lesser versions of Huckabee and Tom Tancredo, respectively, and they do not add anything to the race. Therefore, unless they can show significant polling numbers, I see no reason for them to keep running (whereas if they had unique interesting positions, I could justify their staying in the race despite low poll numbers because of what they added to the debate; for example, Tom Tancredo brings up the big picture on immigration in a way that no other candidate does and Ron Paul brings up monetary policy and non-interventionism).
Hunter should drop out and endorse Tancredo, in my opinion.
It is, of course, more likely that Brownback will endorse one of the big three in hopes of kissing up to power, which is sad, because I think that Huckabee would add something interesting to the race if he could consolidate the "compassionate social conservative" vote.
Update: Andrew Sullivan seems to be suggesting the same thing as I am about Brownback vis a vis Huckabee.
That is all.
Th Insipid Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson wants to overturn Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion via a lawsuit.
Completely ignoring the issue of whether or not the SCHIP expansion is a good idea, ths strikes me as a totally asinine move.
The fact of the matter is, there is no legal requirement that the president let any SCHIP funding bill pass. Health care is not guaranteed as an inalienable right to be protected by the governemnt in our constitution.
So there is no legal standing for Governor Richardson to sue. It is not as if Bush signed the bill and then used executive orders and whatnot to undermine it. His power to veto legislation is enshrined in the Constitution, and ihe has the power to veto whatever he wants.
If you read the article, you will discover that nowhere in the article does Richardson explain the legal basis for his suit. That is becuase there is none.
So it is a totally asinine move. The obvious political reason is that he is running for President, and as a governor he does not have the power to directly counter Bush (by voting to override his veto) the way that Obama or Hillary do.
So he is trying to jump on the "me, too" bandwagon with this ridiculous lawsuit.
That is all.
Completely ignoring the issue of whether or not the SCHIP expansion is a good idea, ths strikes me as a totally asinine move.
The fact of the matter is, there is no legal requirement that the president let any SCHIP funding bill pass. Health care is not guaranteed as an inalienable right to be protected by the governemnt in our constitution.
So there is no legal standing for Governor Richardson to sue. It is not as if Bush signed the bill and then used executive orders and whatnot to undermine it. His power to veto legislation is enshrined in the Constitution, and ihe has the power to veto whatever he wants.
If you read the article, you will discover that nowhere in the article does Richardson explain the legal basis for his suit. That is becuase there is none.
So it is a totally asinine move. The obvious political reason is that he is running for President, and as a governor he does not have the power to directly counter Bush (by voting to override his veto) the way that Obama or Hillary do.
So he is trying to jump on the "me, too" bandwagon with this ridiculous lawsuit.
That is all.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Thoughts on Turkey's Genocide Denial
While I can understand that at this time we wouldn't want to alienate them by actually passing a resolution, if we are going to softpedal Turkey's mass-murder against the Armenians, I think we ought to shut up about Ahmedinejad's Hoilocaust skepticism, unless of course we are just intending to use six million dead Jews as a prop to launch an aggressive war against a country that was not involved in their killing. (In which case we are announcing to the Armenians that they might as well go and screw themselves).
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Ron Paul Shafted in Debate?
Interesting, considering that his fundraising has raised him to a pretty high level among the second tier.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
McCain and the Magic Word
Not that I would ever vote for him, but McCain made a very important point in the economic debate on Tuesday.
As one of the main things I hope for with the Paul candidacy is that he will bring isues to the floor that no one else will touch (e.g. the Federal Reserve), I must give credit when someone else brings up a point that no one else wants to explain.
In the debate, when McCain talked about ethanol bio-fuel, he said the magic word that needs to be said whenever anyone wants to seriously think about ethanol as a supplement to our energy supply.
Sugarcane.
Any realistic attempt to get any benefit from ethanol bio-fuel will almost certainly require us to use sugarcane-based ethanol - which will almost certainly have to be imported. Corn is simply to inefficient.
That is all.
As one of the main things I hope for with the Paul candidacy is that he will bring isues to the floor that no one else will touch (e.g. the Federal Reserve), I must give credit when someone else brings up a point that no one else wants to explain.
In the debate, when McCain talked about ethanol bio-fuel, he said the magic word that needs to be said whenever anyone wants to seriously think about ethanol as a supplement to our energy supply.
Sugarcane.
Any realistic attempt to get any benefit from ethanol bio-fuel will almost certainly require us to use sugarcane-based ethanol - which will almost certainly have to be imported. Corn is simply to inefficient.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Dinsingenuous Atheism
People who claim "I don't believe in labels" tend to strike me as rather pretentious. Generally it seems to me that this is a disingenuous attempt to avoid associations with an idea or categorization that is unpopular, rather than standing up an owning it.
In this vein, I find the speech by Sam Harris that Andrew Sullivan is quoting rather unimpressive:
Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.
Ah, but atheism is a thing.
It is a category.
While atheism is not a worldview or a philosophy, it is certainly a legitimate category of worldviews or philosophies. Atheism is a category of beliefs that share one common element: the denial of the existence of God. Not labelling "atheists" as such is a rather Orwellian way of trying to define the terms of the debate.
Certainly there are other categories comparable to atheism that, while not a philosophy or worldview, nonetheless do exist within clearly recognizable borders.
Monotheism and polytheism come to mind. Sam Harris himself offers one: non-racism. For that matter, fatalism, belief in reincarnation, pragmatism, and a hot of other things can also be called categories, even if they do not represent the entirety of a worldview or philosophy.
I am not sure where this aversion to naming one's self came from. But unlike Andrew, I find it intellectually dishonest to eschew labels (although it is perfectly sound to be opposed to a particular taxonomy of labels, e.g. the current understaning of "conservative" and "liberal").
That is all.
In this vein, I find the speech by Sam Harris that Andrew Sullivan is quoting rather unimpressive:
Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.
Ah, but atheism is a thing.
It is a category.
While atheism is not a worldview or a philosophy, it is certainly a legitimate category of worldviews or philosophies. Atheism is a category of beliefs that share one common element: the denial of the existence of God. Not labelling "atheists" as such is a rather Orwellian way of trying to define the terms of the debate.
Certainly there are other categories comparable to atheism that, while not a philosophy or worldview, nonetheless do exist within clearly recognizable borders.
Monotheism and polytheism come to mind. Sam Harris himself offers one: non-racism. For that matter, fatalism, belief in reincarnation, pragmatism, and a hot of other things can also be called categories, even if they do not represent the entirety of a worldview or philosophy.
I am not sure where this aversion to naming one's self came from. But unlike Andrew, I find it intellectually dishonest to eschew labels (although it is perfectly sound to be opposed to a particular taxonomy of labels, e.g. the current understaning of "conservative" and "liberal").
That is all.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Not All Criticisms of the Surge Are Correct
This post by Andrew Sullivan on September 10 has him complaining that the surge only reduced attacks to the levels of eighteen months ago.
While I believe that the surge will not reduce violence long-term, this is not exactly a fair attack, because it ignores the larger picture, which is not the number of attacks in a particular month, but the trends.
That is, his complain only has validity if the violence has stabilized at that level. As long as the violence is trending downward, there is always the possibility that it will bottom out at a level at or below what we saw in 2003 and early 2004, when the war was still fairly popular.
Certainly the trend in hostile coalition deaths is still downward - for now.
That is all.
While I believe that the surge will not reduce violence long-term, this is not exactly a fair attack, because it ignores the larger picture, which is not the number of attacks in a particular month, but the trends.
That is, his complain only has validity if the violence has stabilized at that level. As long as the violence is trending downward, there is always the possibility that it will bottom out at a level at or below what we saw in 2003 and early 2004, when the war was still fairly popular.
Certainly the trend in hostile coalition deaths is still downward - for now.
That is all.
Withdrawal Isn't that Hard
We keep hearing how it will take a year or more to leave Iraq even if we started getting out right now.
Greg Cochran explains that that is baloney and that we could get out in mere months.
The gist of the article is that most of the "logistical problems" come from the belief that (a) we cannot leave behind anything, including non-combat equipment (e.g. furniture) (b) that soldiers must be taken directly to America to be "out of Iraq," and (c) leaving by land is more dangerous than it actually would be.
The only presidential candidate so far to mention this is Kucinich.
That is all.
Greg Cochran explains that that is baloney and that we could get out in mere months.
The gist of the article is that most of the "logistical problems" come from the belief that (a) we cannot leave behind anything, including non-combat equipment (e.g. furniture) (b) that soldiers must be taken directly to America to be "out of Iraq," and (c) leaving by land is more dangerous than it actually would be.
The only presidential candidate so far to mention this is Kucinich.
That is all.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
A Laughable Line
While I can certainly understand why the top-tier candidates would have a problem going to the Values Voter Debate, and I am not outraged that they did not, I do find this quote in their defense, by Michael Barrett of Strattanville, Pa., hilarious:
They just see this 'debate' for what it is, a 'Christian' ambush of the top four candidates with Farah as the hired hitman/moderator. You want to have an honest debate with a fair moderator, such as [Sean] Hannity or Brit Hume, [then] they would have shown up.
Right. Hannity and Hume are known for even-handedness.
That is all.
They just see this 'debate' for what it is, a 'Christian' ambush of the top four candidates with Farah as the hired hitman/moderator. You want to have an honest debate with a fair moderator, such as [Sean] Hannity or Brit Hume, [then] they would have shown up.
Right. Hannity and Hume are known for even-handedness.
That is all.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Choose "Separation of Church and State" or Big Government. You Can't Have Both.
As Barry Loberfeld masterfully explains.
The way that liberals get away with pretending that they believe in "separation of church and state," as opposed to an atheocracy, is by defining atheism and secularism as inherently non-religious in nature and therefore immune to the First Amendment (e.g. it is perfectly acceptable for the state to annound atheism as the established church), or by defining "religion" so narrowly that "freedom of religion" is simply the freedom to claim a faith and to practice it in one's own head. The right to actually practice one's faith in one's life is dependent on its servility ot the values which the state wishes to impose.
So they pretend to believe in separation of church and state" while believing in big government, ultimately working toward the oppression and suppression of religion.
That is all.
The way that liberals get away with pretending that they believe in "separation of church and state," as opposed to an atheocracy, is by defining atheism and secularism as inherently non-religious in nature and therefore immune to the First Amendment (e.g. it is perfectly acceptable for the state to annound atheism as the established church), or by defining "religion" so narrowly that "freedom of religion" is simply the freedom to claim a faith and to practice it in one's own head. The right to actually practice one's faith in one's life is dependent on its servility ot the values which the state wishes to impose.
So they pretend to believe in separation of church and state" while believing in big government, ultimately working toward the oppression and suppression of religion.
That is all.
Webb Amendment Fails
The "longer deployed than at home" policy is policy for the near future.
So the next time McCain or anyone like him talks about "support the troops," tell him to shove it and to say what he really means:
"BOW BEFORE THE GREAT GOD DUBYA!"
That is all.
So the next time McCain or anyone like him talks about "support the troops," tell him to shove it and to say what he really means:
"BOW BEFORE THE GREAT GOD DUBYA!"
That is all.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Sorry for Light Blogging
I suffered a repetitive motion injury last week at work. It didn't really lay me out, but my shoulder blade hurt all weekend (as in, I couldn't turn my head or get comfortable enough to sleep for more than three or four hours). It's all better now, but I just haven't felt like blogging much.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Troops in Vietnam
Most of the arguments that we were betrayed in Vietnam are based on the idea that Vietnamization worked and that all we needed to do was to provide funding and bombing runs to keep South Vietnam viable.
Proving that he in insane, Norman Podhoretz appears to imply in his latest bromide that Nixon should have kept U.S. ground troops there en masse:
In 1972, Richard Nixon was elected by landslide to a second term as president, but in campaigning against George McGovern's call for us to withdraw from Vietnam, Nixon did not sound an opposing call to fight on to victory. On the contrary: He too promised to get us out of Vietnam. The difference was that he also promised to accomplish this with our honor intact.
In other words, we should have kept fighting on the ground. I suppose that Podhoretz is disappointed that we didn't keep up the 1968 level of casualties throughout the 1970s.
That is all.
Proving that he in insane, Norman Podhoretz appears to imply in his latest bromide that Nixon should have kept U.S. ground troops there en masse:
In 1972, Richard Nixon was elected by landslide to a second term as president, but in campaigning against George McGovern's call for us to withdraw from Vietnam, Nixon did not sound an opposing call to fight on to victory. On the contrary: He too promised to get us out of Vietnam. The difference was that he also promised to accomplish this with our honor intact.
In other words, we should have kept fighting on the ground. I suppose that Podhoretz is disappointed that we didn't keep up the 1968 level of casualties throughout the 1970s.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
One Thing That Would Be Interesting to See...
...Would be 1 minute of the broadcast on September 11, 2001, right before the terrorist attacks and then see how the report first came out. All the videos I have seen so far start with the attacks themselves. I never saw the new break originally (I didn't hear about the attacks until all of the planes had crashed and both towers had collapsed) and think it would be interesting to see how it suddenly broke into the morning news reports.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
All Arabs/Muslims Are the Enemy
Stanley Kurtz makes a valiant attempt to equate the Sunni insurgency with Al Qaeda, largely in response to this piece by Andrew Tilghman.
Distilling his piece to its essence, he makes 3 points:
(1) The primary goal in Iraq is to stay there so as to fight entities in Iraq that will threaten us. There is no "victory point" that we are working toward. We are staying in order to stay. [Presumably he also wants Iraq as a forward base so that we can do the same with the entire Middle East].
(2) All Sunnis are the enemy and any Sunni who commits violence is Al Qaeda.
(3) Long-term bribing of various populations to be quiescent is an acceptable status quo.
The problem with most of his arguments is that he automatically assumes that any Iraqi who deals with Al Qaeda must have desires outside of Iraq. He assumes that anyone who is interested in the local conflict must also be interested in the global conflict of Al Qaeda vs. the U.S., or the broader conflict of the Muslims vs. the west.
This quote epitomizes his problem:
Although surge-supporting analysts say that AQI drafts Baathist insurgents to carry out terror attacks, Tilghman favors analysts who say it’s the other way around. The truth, says Tilghman, is that native insurgent forces are “coopting a steady stream of delusional (AQI) extremists seeking martyrdom” into their local feuds. What Tilghman doesn’t get is that this is how the tribal game is always played. Every player thinks he’s the one cleverly making use of his duller allies for his own ends. And of course, every player is in part correct. To a degree, AQI is using the locals to support global jihad, while the locals are also using AQI to support narrow tribal or sectarian ends.
Yes, to a degree Al Qaeda is co-opting the locals for its own ends. But those ends are local ends even for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's main goal in Iraq is to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq - not necessarily to get us to leave, but to bleed us there and to take away resources. There is little to no evidence that the Iraqis using Al Qaeda for their own local ends have any interest in helping Al Qaeda beyond the mutual goal of hurting the U.S. military forces in Iraq (although some of the Iraqis almost certainly want us to leave, which Al Qaeda may not want). Put another way, the Iraqi involvement in "global jihad" is likely limited to the part of "global jihad" happening in Iraq - there is little Al Qaeda could use them for if our troops were not there.
A given players own primary identity or ends don’t necessarily stay fixed. A truly successful charismatic religious leader — and a militarily successful jihad — heightens a tribesman’s identification with pan-Muslim jihad.
But do we have much evidence of this? Do we actually see Iraqi tribal leaders becoming terorist leaders?
Essentially, Kurtz wants to blur all distinctions so that all Arabs or Muslims are Al Qaeda, and so that completing crushing the entire Arab/Muslim world and holding it under our heel is the only way to protect us.
I think that this is a very foolish way of thinking.
That is all.
Distilling his piece to its essence, he makes 3 points:
(1) The primary goal in Iraq is to stay there so as to fight entities in Iraq that will threaten us. There is no "victory point" that we are working toward. We are staying in order to stay. [Presumably he also wants Iraq as a forward base so that we can do the same with the entire Middle East].
(2) All Sunnis are the enemy and any Sunni who commits violence is Al Qaeda.
(3) Long-term bribing of various populations to be quiescent is an acceptable status quo.
The problem with most of his arguments is that he automatically assumes that any Iraqi who deals with Al Qaeda must have desires outside of Iraq. He assumes that anyone who is interested in the local conflict must also be interested in the global conflict of Al Qaeda vs. the U.S., or the broader conflict of the Muslims vs. the west.
This quote epitomizes his problem:
Although surge-supporting analysts say that AQI drafts Baathist insurgents to carry out terror attacks, Tilghman favors analysts who say it’s the other way around. The truth, says Tilghman, is that native insurgent forces are “coopting a steady stream of delusional (AQI) extremists seeking martyrdom” into their local feuds. What Tilghman doesn’t get is that this is how the tribal game is always played. Every player thinks he’s the one cleverly making use of his duller allies for his own ends. And of course, every player is in part correct. To a degree, AQI is using the locals to support global jihad, while the locals are also using AQI to support narrow tribal or sectarian ends.
Yes, to a degree Al Qaeda is co-opting the locals for its own ends. But those ends are local ends even for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's main goal in Iraq is to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq - not necessarily to get us to leave, but to bleed us there and to take away resources. There is little to no evidence that the Iraqis using Al Qaeda for their own local ends have any interest in helping Al Qaeda beyond the mutual goal of hurting the U.S. military forces in Iraq (although some of the Iraqis almost certainly want us to leave, which Al Qaeda may not want). Put another way, the Iraqi involvement in "global jihad" is likely limited to the part of "global jihad" happening in Iraq - there is little Al Qaeda could use them for if our troops were not there.
A given players own primary identity or ends don’t necessarily stay fixed. A truly successful charismatic religious leader — and a militarily successful jihad — heightens a tribesman’s identification with pan-Muslim jihad.
But do we have much evidence of this? Do we actually see Iraqi tribal leaders becoming terorist leaders?
Essentially, Kurtz wants to blur all distinctions so that all Arabs or Muslims are Al Qaeda, and so that completing crushing the entire Arab/Muslim world and holding it under our heel is the only way to protect us.
I think that this is a very foolish way of thinking.
That is all.
Friday, September 07, 2007
The Link Between Immigration and Poverty
Much of the "growing inequality" of the U.S. comes from the fact that we are importing poor people. This is true independent of whether or not increased immigration is a bad thing; if you add poor people to the country, the nominal poverty rate will be higher even if everyone is better off, because the new poor people's incomes are suddenly figured into the statistics, and their previous lower incomes in their home countries are not counted.
Roert J. Samuelson makes this point in Newsweek, which is terribly important at a time when we are being told how awful our growing inequality problem is.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to the VDARE blog.
That is all.
Roert J. Samuelson makes this point in Newsweek, which is terribly important at a time when we are being told how awful our growing inequality problem is.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to the VDARE blog.
That is all.
A Liberal Appreciates Ron Paul
Richard Blari, though not a Ron Paul supporter, is nonetheless jazzed by the grassroots effort behind the Paul campaign.
I'm sure I found this via the LewRockwell.com blog, althoguh I don't have the permalink right now.
That is all.
I'm sure I found this via the LewRockwell.com blog, althoguh I don't have the permalink right now.
That is all.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Craig vs. Giuliani
Personally, I'd like to see Craig stay in office and the "resroom" business just go away. I don't care about his personal life as long as he doesn't flaunt any peccadilloes or peculiarities and try to normalize them.
Which is why I find Giuliani a lot more offensive than Craig. Giuliani's problems he airs out in public and wants us to accept them. He shows no shame, no sense of sin or repentance, or realization that he has done wrong. He is a pathetic little man, whose assault on traditional values is much worse than the alleged hypocrisy of Craig.
That is all.
Which is why I find Giuliani a lot more offensive than Craig. Giuliani's problems he airs out in public and wants us to accept them. He shows no shame, no sense of sin or repentance, or realization that he has done wrong. He is a pathetic little man, whose assault on traditional values is much worse than the alleged hypocrisy of Craig.
That is all.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Dave Mangan
Takes an utterly stupid (unless he is being consciously evil) position on the DNC's justified retaliation against Florida.
The reason for having Iowa and New Hampshire vote first is so that the candidates can actually campaign for a little bit in small, low-cost states, so that there is at least a chance for the little guys to compete against establishment, big-money candidates.
Obviously, folks like "Dumb (or devilish) Dave" just want us to be restricted to the establishment buffoons.
Of course, he seems to be excited about Giuliani potentially doing well in Florida, and if he's one of the "Giuliani'll kill the ragheads and that's good enough for me!" crowd, then that explains everything.
That is all.
The reason for having Iowa and New Hampshire vote first is so that the candidates can actually campaign for a little bit in small, low-cost states, so that there is at least a chance for the little guys to compete against establishment, big-money candidates.
Obviously, folks like "Dumb (or devilish) Dave" just want us to be restricted to the establishment buffoons.
Of course, he seems to be excited about Giuliani potentially doing well in Florida, and if he's one of the "Giuliani'll kill the ragheads and that's good enough for me!" crowd, then that explains everything.
That is all.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth
Summary:
The government should stop looking at links between obesity and health problems because we want to pretend that such links don't exist.
By the way, the person writing the report is pro-infanticide blogger Maia.
That is all.
The government should stop looking at links between obesity and health problems because we want to pretend that such links don't exist.
By the way, the person writing the report is pro-infanticide blogger Maia.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)