To understand the battles of the Religious Right and anti-Religious Left better (both of which are only part of the Right and Left, respectively), you need to understand that the battle is not just between right-wing theocrats and left-wing believers in religious freedom. While some of it may be that, much of it is between right-wingers who believe in religious freedom and left-wingers who want to effectively establish secular humanism as the official state religion.
This was brought to mind during this exchange.
That is all.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Continuing the Revolution
In one of the comments to this post, I was directed toward this website, specifically to its list of candidates who apparently believe in Paul-esque standards of liberty (I am not yet sure of the criteria to get on the list).
More on this as I know more about it.
In any case, if you are interested in continuing the fight that the Ron Paul for President campaign started, and in expanding it to Congressional races, then this is probably where to begin. Visit the site and get familiar with it.
That is all.
More on this as I know more about it.
In any case, if you are interested in continuing the fight that the Ron Paul for President campaign started, and in expanding it to Congressional races, then this is probably where to begin. Visit the site and get familiar with it.
That is all.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
On the Cuban Embargo
George Will argues for caution about ending the embargo on Cuba on the basis that trade with China has not brought freedom to that country.
I am unconvinced, though. Two things to consider: while politically China may be no closer to democracy than it was thirty years ago, almost certainly the degree of economic freedom has increased. Secondly, we must remember that China is a very large country, and that even a middle class that, in absolute numbers, seems large to us is only a small fraction of the overall population. Huge portions of its population (I think a majority) still live in rural poverty and virtually no amount of realistic economic growth is going to change this fact for at least a decade, probably two or three.
Change of this sort takes a long time in a country as large as China, and I don't see why we need to be pessimistic about the results of opening up the Chinese market in the 70s, or about what the results would be of lifting the Cuban embargo. It wouldn't clean up all of Cuba's problems, but it would be a lot better for everyone than what we have now.
That is all.
I am unconvinced, though. Two things to consider: while politically China may be no closer to democracy than it was thirty years ago, almost certainly the degree of economic freedom has increased. Secondly, we must remember that China is a very large country, and that even a middle class that, in absolute numbers, seems large to us is only a small fraction of the overall population. Huge portions of its population (I think a majority) still live in rural poverty and virtually no amount of realistic economic growth is going to change this fact for at least a decade, probably two or three.
Change of this sort takes a long time in a country as large as China, and I don't see why we need to be pessimistic about the results of opening up the Chinese market in the 70s, or about what the results would be of lifting the Cuban embargo. It wouldn't clean up all of Cuba's problems, but it would be a lot better for everyone than what we have now.
That is all.
The Revolution Continues
For those of you who wish to campaign for Ron Paul-esque House and Senate candidates, here's a list of "Revolutionary" candidates:
Murray Sabrin
B. J. Lawson
With luck, the list will grow.
That is all.
Murray Sabrin
B. J. Lawson
With luck, the list will grow.
That is all.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Paul of Powerline: Please, McCain, Let Me Stick My Tongue Up Your Rectum
Tells you all you need to know about the SOBs at Powerline.
Oh, and about this comment?
If there are conservatives who sincerely believe that it makes little difference whether the Executive Branch is run by John McCain or Barack Obama, they are entitled to sit out the election. And if they’re going to sit it out, I’d appreciate it if they would sit it out entirely; in other words, stop attacking McCain for his “impurities.”
Go screw yourself.
That is all.
Oh, and about this comment?
If there are conservatives who sincerely believe that it makes little difference whether the Executive Branch is run by John McCain or Barack Obama, they are entitled to sit out the election. And if they’re going to sit it out, I’d appreciate it if they would sit it out entirely; in other words, stop attacking McCain for his “impurities.”
Go screw yourself.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Descent of Larry Elder into Neoconnery
Can you believe that the guy who wrote this in 2000 wrote this in 2007 or this in 2008? Or that the guy who wrote this right after September 11 wrote this crap (more here, here, and here) four-and-a-half years later?
My question:
Is he really that much of a neocon or is he on the take like Armstrong Williams?
That is all.
My question:
Is he really that much of a neocon or is he on the take like Armstrong Williams?
That is all.
Paul Wins House Primary
There is still hope in the world.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Eric Garris on the LewRockwell Blog.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Eric Garris on the LewRockwell Blog.
That is all.
Monday, March 03, 2008
New Computer
Although I bought it back in November, I have just got around to setting up my new Imac. This is the first post written on it.
More to come.
That is all.
More to come.
That is all.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The Prisoner (Who is Not a Crook)'s Dilemma
An interesting story of Nuclear brinkmanship by Nixon.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to AntiWar.com.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to AntiWar.com.
That is all.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Ballot Access
Click on this link to be taken to ballot access maps for the major third parties.
I made these maps using photoshop, and they are based on the February 1st issue (the link will work as soon as the issue is posted) of Ballot Access News.
If you just want the Constitution Party ballot access map, here it is:
That is all.
I made these maps using photoshop, and they are based on the February 1st issue (the link will work as soon as the issue is posted) of Ballot Access News.
If you just want the Constitution Party ballot access map, here it is:
That is all.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ballot Access Map for February Coming Up
Tomorrow, with the posting of the February 1st ballot access chart at Ballot Access News, I will be posting a ballot access map for all of the major third parties.
Richard Winger has told me that he is okay with my doing this (I will be doing it using the information that is already available online, not the information from the hardcopy newsletter, so it will be a month late). In any case, you want the latest data, subscribe to Ballot Access News. I did, and it was worth it.
That is all.
Richard Winger has told me that he is okay with my doing this (I will be doing it using the information that is already available online, not the information from the hardcopy newsletter, so it will be a month late). In any case, you want the latest data, subscribe to Ballot Access News. I did, and it was worth it.
That is all.
Court Declares Vaccines May Be a Factor in Autism, Obviously Knows More than People Who Do, You Know, Actual Scientific Research on the Issue
As we all know, courts are the best qualified groups for determining scientific questions. No need for those pesky studies, or for actual non-anecdotal data.
Now, maybe there is more to this, I'll admit that I have not read through this paper very carefully, but at first blush it appears that courts took sympathy on a family with an autistic child, made an emotional decision, and people who are suspicious of vaccines are looking at this as if it were somehow scientifically significant.
thanx and a tip o' the hat to WorldNetDaily.
That is all.
Now, maybe there is more to this, I'll admit that I have not read through this paper very carefully, but at first blush it appears that courts took sympathy on a family with an autistic child, made an emotional decision, and people who are suspicious of vaccines are looking at this as if it were somehow scientifically significant.
thanx and a tip o' the hat to WorldNetDaily.
That is all.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
On Education
The comments by Gregory Cochran on this Steve Sailer post bring up an interesting question:
Is the primary purpose of getting a kid a "good education" really about improving aptitude (I'm assuming that Cochran is talking more about aptitude tests than tests of knowledge) test scores and getting him a higher paying job? If that is the case, yes, innate ability generally seems to be a much more important factor.
However, are there other benefits to having a "good education," such as a happier time in school, perhaps a better knowledge of culture and literature, and the like? Is the quality of education really unimportant to quality of life, or is it just that it does not create the material benefits that many people assume is its primary goal?
The thing that troubles me about Cochran's observations is the question of how far can you take the "innate ability thing" before how you treat a kid actually has consequences? Could we just stop all education and let all of the kids run wild? Could we lock them all up in closets for the first eighteen years? Is there any point in caring for our kids at all? Or is it just that virtually every kid in the U.S. receives the minimum level of care before the marginal returns on extra care diminsih to near-zero?
That is all.
Is the primary purpose of getting a kid a "good education" really about improving aptitude (I'm assuming that Cochran is talking more about aptitude tests than tests of knowledge) test scores and getting him a higher paying job? If that is the case, yes, innate ability generally seems to be a much more important factor.
However, are there other benefits to having a "good education," such as a happier time in school, perhaps a better knowledge of culture and literature, and the like? Is the quality of education really unimportant to quality of life, or is it just that it does not create the material benefits that many people assume is its primary goal?
The thing that troubles me about Cochran's observations is the question of how far can you take the "innate ability thing" before how you treat a kid actually has consequences? Could we just stop all education and let all of the kids run wild? Could we lock them all up in closets for the first eighteen years? Is there any point in caring for our kids at all? Or is it just that virtually every kid in the U.S. receives the minimum level of care before the marginal returns on extra care diminsih to near-zero?
That is all.
Why Give to AntiWar.com?
Because if it were not for my getting interested in AntiWar.com back during the 2000 Presidential Race, I might have become a war hawk after 9/11.
Please give.
That is all.
Please give.
That is all.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Ann Coulter on McCain-Feingold
A great article.
McCain must be defeated, even if it the result is a Democrat in the White House (although I would not vote for the Democrat).
That is all.
McCain must be defeated, even if it the result is a Democrat in the White House (although I would not vote for the Democrat).
That is all.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Ron Paul and Third Party Run
If Ron Paul loses the primary for his Congressional seat, I would not be opposed to him running to retain it as an independent or as a third=party candidate, provided that he is able to do this (I don't know if Texas has "sore loser laws"). If he can't, maybe one of his children can run in his place.
Alternately, I would not be against him changing his mind on his decision not to run for President if he loses the Congressional nomination, although if he can retain his Congressional seat then he ought not to run.
In any case, if his opponent wins I'll probably send money to whoever the Democrat is running for that district (unless Paul runs third party), just to spite that little SOB Peden. I may get similarly involved in the race for Gilchrest's old seat, too.
That is all.
Alternately, I would not be against him changing his mind on his decision not to run for President if he loses the Congressional nomination, although if he can retain his Congressional seat then he ought not to run.
In any case, if his opponent wins I'll probably send money to whoever the Democrat is running for that district (unless Paul runs third party), just to spite that little SOB Peden. I may get similarly involved in the race for Gilchrest's old seat, too.
That is all.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Come on, People!
In one week, Antiwar.com raised 55.48% of its goals. I've already donated $100.00, plus my $15.00 a month. We need to pick up the pace!
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
AntiWar.Com Needs Your Help!
If you can spare some cash, please donate today.
(I am currently pledging $15.00 a month automatically).
That is all.
(I am currently pledging $15.00 a month automatically).
That is all.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Next Plan of Attack
Go to Paul's Congressional campaign website and click on "Contribute!" to make certain that he is well-funded for the primary to retain his House seat.
Contributions to the Constitution Party will help them get on the ballot in more states.
That is all.
Contributions to the Constitution Party will help them get on the ballot in more states.
That is all.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
Constitution Party Ballot Access (2008 Presidential Race)
As of 01/01/08.
Note: There is an error in here. Missouri ought to be orange, not red, as the petitioning is finished but the CP has not officially been given access yet.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ballot Access News.
That is all.
Note: There is an error in here. Missouri ought to be orange, not red, as the petitioning is finished but the CP has not officially been given access yet.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Ballot Access News.
That is all.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Marcus Epstein Nails It
This is not to say the West is free of ethnic warfare—in fact, no matter how "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" was justified, it was able to gain public support largely because Americans wanted to kill Arabs after 9-11
-War And The Imperfect Nature Of Man
That is all.
-War And The Imperfect Nature Of Man
That is all.
When it Comes to Presdential Elections, Lawrence Auster is No Different from the Mainstream
Lawrence Auster of VFR often has good ideas, but when it comes to presidential elections, he is not very useful. Last time around, he decided to launch a protest vote, not by supporting an actual third party candidate, but by writing in Tom Tancredo, who wasn't even running.
Now this time around, he has decided to endorse Romney, or in other words, four more years of the same. He supported Tancredo at first, but after Tancredo dropped out, he made it clear that Paul was not a man he could support because Paul he doesn't like Lincoln, because Paul doesn't think that we have the right to do whatever we want around the world and expect other countries to welcome it, and because his stance on immigration, although in practical terms probably tougher than anyone except for Tancredo or Hunter, is not based on the correct arguments and might get weaker in the distant future once (and if) all of his economic ideas were passed.
All of which would be fine if Auster had decided to sit out the race and endorse no one. But he has in essence endorsed Romney, meaning in essence he is supporting four more years of the same policies as we have had for the past four years.
So by all means read VFR for Auster's policy insights. But don't expect his decisions on the presidential election to be anything other than what you would find at any mainstream "conservative" organization.
That is all.
Now this time around, he has decided to endorse Romney, or in other words, four more years of the same. He supported Tancredo at first, but after Tancredo dropped out, he made it clear that Paul was not a man he could support because Paul he doesn't like Lincoln, because Paul doesn't think that we have the right to do whatever we want around the world and expect other countries to welcome it, and because his stance on immigration, although in practical terms probably tougher than anyone except for Tancredo or Hunter, is not based on the correct arguments and might get weaker in the distant future once (and if) all of his economic ideas were passed.
All of which would be fine if Auster had decided to sit out the race and endorse no one. But he has in essence endorsed Romney, meaning in essence he is supporting four more years of the same policies as we have had for the past four years.
So by all means read VFR for Auster's policy insights. But don't expect his decisions on the presidential election to be anything other than what you would find at any mainstream "conservative" organization.
That is all.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Iraqi Fatalities
I generally gauge the success of our efforts to tamp violence down in Iraq by the coalition hostile death count.
According to the latest data, we seem to be settling into late 2003, early 2004 territory, with death tolls in the 30s. The death toll has been around 30 in 3 of the last 4 months, and after dipping to 14 in December, is at 32 (so far) in January, suggesting that the decrease in violence has bottomed out.
I have been unwilling to make statements of this sort previously, because complaining that the violence "has been brought down only to 2006/2005/2004 levels" seemed unfair as long as the decreasing trend was continuing; but now that the level seems to have stabilizd at a new equilibrium, it is fair to start using the current numbers as the measure to judge our current strategy (at least in terms of violence levels against the coalition, which increasingly means just the U.S.).
That is all.
According to the latest data, we seem to be settling into late 2003, early 2004 territory, with death tolls in the 30s. The death toll has been around 30 in 3 of the last 4 months, and after dipping to 14 in December, is at 32 (so far) in January, suggesting that the decrease in violence has bottomed out.
I have been unwilling to make statements of this sort previously, because complaining that the violence "has been brought down only to 2006/2005/2004 levels" seemed unfair as long as the decreasing trend was continuing; but now that the level seems to have stabilizd at a new equilibrium, it is fair to start using the current numbers as the measure to judge our current strategy (at least in terms of violence levels against the coalition, which increasingly means just the U.S.).
That is all.
The Michigan and Florida Problem
If there is a clear Democratic winner, the Democrats will almost certainly count all of the Florida and Michigan delegates. But if not, and if these delegates make a difference, then they might well not count them - why? Because if these delegates make Clinton the nominee over Obama, the Democratic Party is going to alienate a whole lot of blacks who will feel that they were cheated. Same is true if the superdelegates make the difference; that is, if Obama wins the delegates in the "officially counted" states but loses once the superdelegates are counted.
I haven't yet heard anyone bring up the racial angle to this, but it seems clear as day to me.
That is all.
I haven't yet heard anyone bring up the racial angle to this, but it seems clear as day to me.
That is all.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Obama vs. Mitt
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)