There are now eight Augustawell strips on the Augustawell blog (although only seven are on the front page).
I believe that I have solved a problem that some people have been having, namely, that the screen would not scroll and was often too thin to show the entire comic.
I have a hard time using the html, as it is different than the html for the Glaivester blog (although they are both based on the same template), but I just added a bunch of asterisks to my description and the screen does not automatically resize the writing anymore, so the blog is always wide enough to display the comic strips.
Please visit and leave a comment on any strip.
Note: I have enabled comment moderation on Augustawell, mainly because it appears to be the best way for me to be able to keep track of new comments (I may use Haloscan later, but it doesn't let me track to which post a comment is made). Please comment on the strip evenif the comments are not posted immediately, and I will try to post the comments as soon as possible.
That is all.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
On the Recent Supreme Court Ruling
With all the whining about the decision to protect Guantanamo Bay detainees' right to habeas corpus, no one seems to realize the main reason behind the ruling.
It's not that the Supreme Court members think that terrorists deserve Constitutional protections; it's that they no longer have any faith in the Bush administration to correctly determine who are and are not terrorists. More bluntly, they do not trust Bush not to incarcerate massive numbers of innocents.
That is all.
It's not that the Supreme Court members think that terrorists deserve Constitutional protections; it's that they no longer have any faith in the Bush administration to correctly determine who are and are not terrorists. More bluntly, they do not trust Bush not to incarcerate massive numbers of innocents.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
One Thing I Readily Agree with Ben Shapiro on
Calling someone with female organs and female chromosomes a "man" is ludicrous.
This is not a "pregnant man." It is a pregnant woman who likes to think that she is a man.
That is all.
This is not a "pregnant man." It is a pregnant woman who likes to think that she is a man.
That is all.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Victor Davis Hanson Doesn't Get It
Over at The corner, Victor Davis Hanson makes the argument that the real problem with the war was the way it was sold: rather than WMDs, the people pushing the war should have emphasized:
they were considerable humanitarian questions dealing with the Kurds, Shiites, UN embargo, bounties for suicide bombing, etc., and continual reference to them would have made the Congress more invested in the war they voted to authorize.
The problems with these justifications:
The humanitarian questions get a lot of sympathy, but the American people are unwilling to take on a project to reform some foreign society by military occupation. Besides, things did not turn out so hot in the war's after math after all (more on that later), so in the end the humanitarian argument would have turned just as sour once the civil war began as the WMD argument did when they were not found.
The bounties for suicide bombers was not a winning issue other than the fact that it tied Saddam to some form of Muslim terrorism. Moreover, the idea that we had to spend billions of dollars to stop him from paying $25,000 to the families of Palestianian suicide bombers would have made it difficult to argue that we weren't just fighting for Israel's sake.
As for the embargo and the UN resolutions, the problem is two-fold. First, most people don't care much about UN resolutions or making the UN a stronger, more respected institution. Secondly, those who do study the issue and are honest about it know that the U.S. did not exactly deal honestly with the inspections or with the embargo, insisting that the embargo was to stop WMDs and then refusing to end it as long as Saddam was in power regardless of how well he complied. Secondly, Clinton used the inspections to spy on Saddam with the goal of bringing regime change.
In short, none of these reasons was convincing without the udea that Saddam was actively threatening us. Notice how unconvinced people are by the "but Saddam was himself a WMD" argument, which sounds just like what it is; an attempt to reform the language to rationalize a bad decision.
Andrew McCarthy chimes in on the fact htat Saddam had violated several resolutions, again not mentioning how the U.S. government (specifically Clinton) had abused those resolutions.
Rich Lowry rationally points out that the WMD were the only rationale which the public would really care about - you suggest that a nuke will go off in their backyards if they don't invade, it gets their attention. He also makes the rational point that if things had gone well, people would not have cared how good or bad the rationales for war were.
Hanson still sticks with his original idea, saying that this is all the more reson why we needed to have other rationales to remind people of when things got tough (Lowry sensibly points out that once things got bad, lot of people would not have cared about the other ratinoales (indeed, I quesiton whether anybody who was not invested in the war for their own reasons really would be persuaded by the violation of UN resolutions, the suicide bombers, or Saddam's cruelty to his own people) .
In particular, this line annoys me:
Second, by default we wouldn't have invested only in the democracy argument that was tied to Bush alone and caricatured as naivete (rather than admirable idealism which it was) when the Congress proposed and owned the numerous others.
Naivete rather than admirable idealism? His "idealism" was not backed up by any understanding of Iraqi culture or of how to fit democracy to their culture. It was based on the liberal idea that all societies are exactly as capable of democracy, and that you could essentially drop any form of government on them and it would work. It's essentially like arguing that it is "idealism" to try to run Mac 10.5 on a Pentium 1 chip, or to install Windows Vista on an Apple II.
Note what Hanson is really saying: what matters is that Bushs intentions were good. That, and not whether he had a realistic plan, is what matters.
And look at the surreal situation we are in today: all those legitimate reasons to remove Saddam which were so carefully explained by the Congress are now irrelevant or forgotten; and those who proposed and authorized them all hid their flip-flopping in the WMD bogeyman../
None of which really mattered to anyone who did not already want to go into Iraq for other reasons (such as establishing an imperial base, conquering an enemy of Israel, securing control of an oil field for the future, etc.).
He also makes half of a good point:
Left unsaid is the obvious: had the insurgency been crushed at the outset, all this hindsight would be now irrelevant.
True.
Had Iraq looked in 2003 like it does today, there would have never been 'Bush lied, thousands died'.
No, the violence level today is similar to that of the summer of 2003, at least in terms of deaths of coalition Troops. And Iraq today may be peaceful, but it has the marks of a lot of civil war, ethnic cleansing, and destruction from the past five years.
What Hanson means is that if the violence level of May 2008 had predominated throughout the war, there would not have been "Bush lied, thousands died." But of ocurse that assumes that today's lower level of violence could have been achieved without the intervening years of civil war, ethnic cleansing, and violence burning itself out to some extent. In other words, it is based on the idea that sending a few dozen thousand more soldiers and changing tactics slightly suddenly turned everything around.
That is all.
they were considerable humanitarian questions dealing with the Kurds, Shiites, UN embargo, bounties for suicide bombing, etc., and continual reference to them would have made the Congress more invested in the war they voted to authorize.
The problems with these justifications:
The humanitarian questions get a lot of sympathy, but the American people are unwilling to take on a project to reform some foreign society by military occupation. Besides, things did not turn out so hot in the war's after math after all (more on that later), so in the end the humanitarian argument would have turned just as sour once the civil war began as the WMD argument did when they were not found.
The bounties for suicide bombers was not a winning issue other than the fact that it tied Saddam to some form of Muslim terrorism. Moreover, the idea that we had to spend billions of dollars to stop him from paying $25,000 to the families of Palestianian suicide bombers would have made it difficult to argue that we weren't just fighting for Israel's sake.
As for the embargo and the UN resolutions, the problem is two-fold. First, most people don't care much about UN resolutions or making the UN a stronger, more respected institution. Secondly, those who do study the issue and are honest about it know that the U.S. did not exactly deal honestly with the inspections or with the embargo, insisting that the embargo was to stop WMDs and then refusing to end it as long as Saddam was in power regardless of how well he complied. Secondly, Clinton used the inspections to spy on Saddam with the goal of bringing regime change.
In short, none of these reasons was convincing without the udea that Saddam was actively threatening us. Notice how unconvinced people are by the "but Saddam was himself a WMD" argument, which sounds just like what it is; an attempt to reform the language to rationalize a bad decision.
Andrew McCarthy chimes in on the fact htat Saddam had violated several resolutions, again not mentioning how the U.S. government (specifically Clinton) had abused those resolutions.
Rich Lowry rationally points out that the WMD were the only rationale which the public would really care about - you suggest that a nuke will go off in their backyards if they don't invade, it gets their attention. He also makes the rational point that if things had gone well, people would not have cared how good or bad the rationales for war were.
Hanson still sticks with his original idea, saying that this is all the more reson why we needed to have other rationales to remind people of when things got tough (Lowry sensibly points out that once things got bad, lot of people would not have cared about the other ratinoales (indeed, I quesiton whether anybody who was not invested in the war for their own reasons really would be persuaded by the violation of UN resolutions, the suicide bombers, or Saddam's cruelty to his own people) .
In particular, this line annoys me:
Second, by default we wouldn't have invested only in the democracy argument that was tied to Bush alone and caricatured as naivete (rather than admirable idealism which it was) when the Congress proposed and owned the numerous others.
Naivete rather than admirable idealism? His "idealism" was not backed up by any understanding of Iraqi culture or of how to fit democracy to their culture. It was based on the liberal idea that all societies are exactly as capable of democracy, and that you could essentially drop any form of government on them and it would work. It's essentially like arguing that it is "idealism" to try to run Mac 10.5 on a Pentium 1 chip, or to install Windows Vista on an Apple II.
Note what Hanson is really saying: what matters is that Bushs intentions were good. That, and not whether he had a realistic plan, is what matters.
And look at the surreal situation we are in today: all those legitimate reasons to remove Saddam which were so carefully explained by the Congress are now irrelevant or forgotten; and those who proposed and authorized them all hid their flip-flopping in the WMD bogeyman../
None of which really mattered to anyone who did not already want to go into Iraq for other reasons (such as establishing an imperial base, conquering an enemy of Israel, securing control of an oil field for the future, etc.).
He also makes half of a good point:
Left unsaid is the obvious: had the insurgency been crushed at the outset, all this hindsight would be now irrelevant.
True.
Had Iraq looked in 2003 like it does today, there would have never been 'Bush lied, thousands died'.
No, the violence level today is similar to that of the summer of 2003, at least in terms of deaths of coalition Troops. And Iraq today may be peaceful, but it has the marks of a lot of civil war, ethnic cleansing, and destruction from the past five years.
What Hanson means is that if the violence level of May 2008 had predominated throughout the war, there would not have been "Bush lied, thousands died." But of ocurse that assumes that today's lower level of violence could have been achieved without the intervening years of civil war, ethnic cleansing, and violence burning itself out to some extent. In other words, it is based on the idea that sending a few dozen thousand more soldiers and changing tactics slightly suddenly turned everything around.
That is all.
More on Augustawell
I've been busy on my comic strip.
Five Augustawell comics are up now.
Please, visit the site and give me some feedback. Be aware, though, that it uses Blogger comments rather than haloscan.
That is all.
Five Augustawell comics are up now.
Please, visit the site and give me some feedback. Be aware, though, that it uses Blogger comments rather than haloscan.
That is all.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
The Problem With Clark Stooksbury
UPDATE: Clark Stooksbury responds.
I think in my original post I may have been unclear as to my point. My point was not that minority crime keeps people off of bicycles per se as much as that high crime rates in urban areas are one major reason why so many white people live far away and commute to work. Moreover, any method of public transportation has some of the same risks, as long as you are essentially exposed to other people during the transport (as opposed to, say, being in your car where you can control who goes in and out).
As for the minority part, the point was not that minority crimes are more frightening than white-on-white crimes, rather it was that the high rate of criminality among non-Asian minorities and the high concentration of non-Asian minorities in cities are a major reason why there are high crime rates in cities.
Original post:
Although he is constantly harping on our need to cut energy consumption through reducing our need for travel, the direness of the situation, and denying any alternative solution to not using our cars and living in bikeable communities (which essentially would force those who commute to big-city jobs to live in the city, as some of these jobs are unlikely to move into the suburbs), he has never once addressed one of the main reasons why white people do not like to live in the city and do not like using bikes or public transport.
I think that if fuel prices force a move back into the cities, I think we are going to see a sudden decrease in white tolerance for minority misbehavior.
That is all.
I think in my original post I may have been unclear as to my point. My point was not that minority crime keeps people off of bicycles per se as much as that high crime rates in urban areas are one major reason why so many white people live far away and commute to work. Moreover, any method of public transportation has some of the same risks, as long as you are essentially exposed to other people during the transport (as opposed to, say, being in your car where you can control who goes in and out).
As for the minority part, the point was not that minority crimes are more frightening than white-on-white crimes, rather it was that the high rate of criminality among non-Asian minorities and the high concentration of non-Asian minorities in cities are a major reason why there are high crime rates in cities.
Original post:
Although he is constantly harping on our need to cut energy consumption through reducing our need for travel, the direness of the situation, and denying any alternative solution to not using our cars and living in bikeable communities (which essentially would force those who commute to big-city jobs to live in the city, as some of these jobs are unlikely to move into the suburbs), he has never once addressed one of the main reasons why white people do not like to live in the city and do not like using bikes or public transport.
I think that if fuel prices force a move back into the cities, I think we are going to see a sudden decrease in white tolerance for minority misbehavior.
That is all.
Mugabe and Food
He is trying to starve people if they are likely to vote against him in the elections unless they give uo their right to vote.
I think that the people who opposed white rule in Rhodesia have some serious apologizing to do.
That is all.
I think that the people who opposed white rule in Rhodesia have some serious apologizing to do.
That is all.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Thoughts on Same-Sex "Marriage"
Andrew Sullivan:
Buried in the rush of election news yesterday was the California court's refusal to stay the civil marriages for gay couples that will start on June 17 and continue throughout the year. This strikes me as a critical decision because it reframes the debate in California. If voters are asked to decide on the abstract question of marriage equality, they respond differently than if they are asked to decide about civil marriages already in existence. Many voters simply do not want to think about this question and resent those who bring it up. If you ask Californians: "Do you favor the right of gay couples to marry?" they will divide pretty evenly. If you ask, "Do you want to undo all these couples' marriages?" they will tend to answer no.
What Sullivan does not mention, however, is that sometimes being close to an issue and getting sentimental about it makes for bad, rather than good decisions. Those who refuse to vote against same-sex "marriage" because they don't want to hurt the feelings of a gay couple they know are not necessarily acting on rational impulses or impulses that reflect the larger picture of what is good for society. The reasons why same-sex marriage is damaging to society do not go away because we suddenly are filled with pain for those poor gay couples whose marriages are suddenly annulled, and a person does better to vote with his principles than based on his sentimental desire not to cause anyone any psychological pain.
That is all.
Buried in the rush of election news yesterday was the California court's refusal to stay the civil marriages for gay couples that will start on June 17 and continue throughout the year. This strikes me as a critical decision because it reframes the debate in California. If voters are asked to decide on the abstract question of marriage equality, they respond differently than if they are asked to decide about civil marriages already in existence. Many voters simply do not want to think about this question and resent those who bring it up. If you ask Californians: "Do you favor the right of gay couples to marry?" they will divide pretty evenly. If you ask, "Do you want to undo all these couples' marriages?" they will tend to answer no.
What Sullivan does not mention, however, is that sometimes being close to an issue and getting sentimental about it makes for bad, rather than good decisions. Those who refuse to vote against same-sex "marriage" because they don't want to hurt the feelings of a gay couple they know are not necessarily acting on rational impulses or impulses that reflect the larger picture of what is good for society. The reasons why same-sex marriage is damaging to society do not go away because we suddenly are filled with pain for those poor gay couples whose marriages are suddenly annulled, and a person does better to vote with his principles than based on his sentimental desire not to cause anyone any psychological pain.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Augustawell
I have started a comic strip on a new blog.
The comic strip is called Augustawell, and will be updated sporadically.
That is all.
The comic strip is called Augustawell, and will be updated sporadically.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
They Don't Get It
I heard Tammy Bruce on Laura Ingraham's show yesterday the question "why did Clinton win in Puerto Rico?" With the answer being that people are starting to see Obama for who he really is. This was followed by a statement that Clinton won all of the demographic groups (the young, the elite) that Obama usually wins.
This is rather like asking why the jury acquitted OJ and suggesting that they were mostly foorball fans and that they usually wouldn't support a known wife-abuser.
THE REASON, STUPID, IS THAT PUERTO RICO IS 99% HISPANIC.
The idea that Hillary won Obama's demographic groups only makes sense if you completely ignore the ethnic factor in demographics. Hillary did well with Hispanics as she usually has done.
That is all.
This is rather like asking why the jury acquitted OJ and suggesting that they were mostly foorball fans and that they usually wouldn't support a known wife-abuser.
THE REASON, STUPID, IS THAT PUERTO RICO IS 99% HISPANIC.
The idea that Hillary won Obama's demographic groups only makes sense if you completely ignore the ethnic factor in demographics. Hillary did well with Hispanics as she usually has done.
That is all.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Sunday, June 01, 2008
More on Obama vs. Clinton from VFR
On Lawrence Auster's blog, Clark Coleman opines:
I don't think the anger of Hillary supporters is because of Florida and Michigan. I think they perceive what everyone else in the country perceives (incuding most Obama supporters). Namely, that Obama is unqualified and inexperienced, that he is shallow and vapid, that he has been given a free pass because he is black and everyone is afraid to criticize him because any criticism of a black person must be motivated by racism, and that the mainstream news media in particular have been openly on his side.
Auster approves of this idea:
This explains a lot. What Mr. Coleman is saying is that the Hillary supporters are seeing the truth of the Obama phenomenon with a clarity that even many conservatives and Republicans lack--because that phenomenon is affecting them much more directly. After all, it is widely believed that Barack is too "Obamaged" to win in November, so he doesn't threaten the people who favor McCain and who also think Obama can't beat him. But the Obama phenomenon with its black racial favoritism IS harming the Hillary supporters in the most direct and traumatic way, by stopping Hillary from being nominated and becoming president.
And this trauma sparks their fury at something that, as left-liberal Democrats, they might otherwise not have found bothersome: the liberal media's and the Democratic party's "normalization" and acceptance of Obama's 20 year membership in a black racist church.
I don't know if I would give Hillary supporters that much credit for analyzing Obama; I think that they are upset because they feel that Hillary is owed the nomination and because they see all of the work for her going up in smoke. While they may be pointing out real flaws with Obama, I do not think that they have this principled objection nor do I think that they would have behaved much differently if it had been, e.g., John Edwards who was beating her. That they have picked up on Obama's flaws is just fortuitous coincidence.
That is all.
I don't think the anger of Hillary supporters is because of Florida and Michigan. I think they perceive what everyone else in the country perceives (incuding most Obama supporters). Namely, that Obama is unqualified and inexperienced, that he is shallow and vapid, that he has been given a free pass because he is black and everyone is afraid to criticize him because any criticism of a black person must be motivated by racism, and that the mainstream news media in particular have been openly on his side.
Auster approves of this idea:
This explains a lot. What Mr. Coleman is saying is that the Hillary supporters are seeing the truth of the Obama phenomenon with a clarity that even many conservatives and Republicans lack--because that phenomenon is affecting them much more directly. After all, it is widely believed that Barack is too "Obamaged" to win in November, so he doesn't threaten the people who favor McCain and who also think Obama can't beat him. But the Obama phenomenon with its black racial favoritism IS harming the Hillary supporters in the most direct and traumatic way, by stopping Hillary from being nominated and becoming president.
And this trauma sparks their fury at something that, as left-liberal Democrats, they might otherwise not have found bothersome: the liberal media's and the Democratic party's "normalization" and acceptance of Obama's 20 year membership in a black racist church.
I don't know if I would give Hillary supporters that much credit for analyzing Obama; I think that they are upset because they feel that Hillary is owed the nomination and because they see all of the work for her going up in smoke. While they may be pointing out real flaws with Obama, I do not think that they have this principled objection nor do I think that they would have behaved much differently if it had been, e.g., John Edwards who was beating her. That they have picked up on Obama's flaws is just fortuitous coincidence.
That is all.
Geraldine Ferraro Stands up for Whites
Although I don't know that I agree with the gist of her article, this statement is interesting:
Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Floirda and Michigan Delegate Follies
I say don't count a single delegate (other than the supers). If you don't stand up for your rules, no one will listen to them again.
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, May 30, 2008
More Crazy Antidiscrimination Law
Apparently, it is illegal to deny men entry into women's restrooms in Colorado - at least if the man thinks he's a woman. (I'm not certain if being transgendered is a requirement here or not).
It's time that we say what needs to be said: antidiscrimination laws have become completely tyrannical and need to be abolished.
That is all.
It's time that we say what needs to be said: antidiscrimination laws have become completely tyrannical and need to be abolished.
That is all.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Ballot Access for Constitution Party 05-29-08
Here is the current Constitution Party Ballot Access map, updated from three days ago, based on Constitution Party data.
Sunday night, I will try to post the May 1, 2008 Ballot Access Map for the other parties/candidates on the ballot access map page.
That is all.
Sunday night, I will try to post the May 1, 2008 Ballot Access Map for the other parties/candidates on the ballot access map page.
That is all.
AntiWar.com Needs Funds
If you find this site useful, then now is the time to donate.
I am afraid that I can't give any more than I am giving now (although I am still giving $15.00 monthly), because I am currently tapped out. But I can call on my readers to help.
That is all.
I am afraid that I can't give any more than I am giving now (although I am still giving $15.00 monthly), because I am currently tapped out. But I can call on my readers to help.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Ballot Access for Constitution Party
This ballot access map will be updated more frequently than the previous one, and is based on the statistics on the Constitution Party's own website. One difference is that I am not counting out Oklahoma or Arizona until both the party and individual deadlines pass. States whose deadlines have passed will, upon notice on the CP website, be colored white (for uncertain) until it is determined whether or not they have write-in access.
Note: "Just started" is listed here as "not started" (green). States do not get yellow until actual petitions are collected, except in cases (e.g. for those running for individual candidates in Louisiana) where methods other than petitioning are being used for ballot access.
That is all
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Gitmo and Propaganda
I like this article, which deals with Guantanamo detainees who are released and who then commit terrorist acts. The pro-warriors, of course, use them as evidence that anyone who comes to Guantanamo must be detained forever lest they be a terrorist. That perhaps this indicates that our methods for screening people to determine their status before shipping them to Gitmo or for keeping them at Gitmo are faulty never enters their minds.
The truth of the matter is that the treatment of Guantanamo detainees has always been less of an issue for me (not because I don't care how they are treated but because I haven't heard of any severe mistreatment in Guantanamo) than the issue of the sufficiency of the screening methods. That is, my main concern is that the methods for challenging one's detention or getting one's detention reviewed may not be sufficient.
That is all.
The truth of the matter is that the treatment of Guantanamo detainees has always been less of an issue for me (not because I don't care how they are treated but because I haven't heard of any severe mistreatment in Guantanamo) than the issue of the sufficiency of the screening methods. That is, my main concern is that the methods for challenging one's detention or getting one's detention reviewed may not be sufficient.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Calling a Tail a Leg Doesn't Make it a Leg
According to Ruth Rosen's article on TPMCafe amounts to saying "these gay couples say that were already married, whether the state says so or not."
Actually, they are not truly married, whether or not the state claims they are.
That is all.
Actually, they are not truly married, whether or not the state claims they are.
That is all.
More Same-Sex "Marriage"
I don't think that the recent California Supreme court decision bodes well for the country.
But I am too weary to blog about it now.
That is all.
But I am too weary to blog about it now.
That is all.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
If Only They Were Engaging in Incestuous Lesbian Sex, They Might Have Had a Chance
Two sisters who have lived in the same house for forty years are denied the same protection that gay couples are allowed under civil unions.
I think that Peter Hitchens has the best take on this:
We were told that the civil partnership laws were all about compassion.
We were persuaded that, without these changes, long-standing homosexual couples would be forced to sell their homes to pay death duties when one of them died.
It was their 'Human Right' not to suffer this.
Well, where's the compassion, or the "Human Rights" when sisters Joyce and Sybil Burden seek the same privileges? Nowhere to be seen.
The thing was a fraud. It wasn't about kindness at all, only about furthering the sexual revolution.
That is all.
I think that Peter Hitchens has the best take on this:
We were told that the civil partnership laws were all about compassion.
We were persuaded that, without these changes, long-standing homosexual couples would be forced to sell their homes to pay death duties when one of them died.
It was their 'Human Right' not to suffer this.
Well, where's the compassion, or the "Human Rights" when sisters Joyce and Sybil Burden seek the same privileges? Nowhere to be seen.
The thing was a fraud. It wasn't about kindness at all, only about furthering the sexual revolution.
That is all.
"But I Don't Want to be a Model Minority"
From the folks at "Alas," I found this little gem from some Asian woman who apparently wants to be seen as a "debit to her race" (scare quotes, these are my words, not hers).
Here's an excerpt:
When people talk about the model minority, “model” is code for never making other people feel uncomfortable about racism. “Model” means not being like all those other troublesome people of color. It means keeping your mouth shut and your eyes lowered. It means smiling brightly and nodding along. Yes, sir! Whatever you say, sir! It means never complaining.
No, what makes Asians a model minority is that they have (as an average) a lower crime rate than whites, and they don't respond to welfare by huge increases in illegitimacy. Plus, they can compete with whites on race-blind tests, unlike other groups where the majority have to be given a large handicap to have any chance to compete for things such as higher-tier colleges. Also, they don't tend to burn down their cities when they feel slighted.
I suppose that it may be racist to congratulate Asians on this. But you know, if it bothers them that much, all they need to do is start committing more rapes and murders, and to encourage their children not to do well in school and then to blame the fact they don't do well on white racism and I am sure that eventually they will be able to escape that pesky label,
That is all.
Here's an excerpt:
When people talk about the model minority, “model” is code for never making other people feel uncomfortable about racism. “Model” means not being like all those other troublesome people of color. It means keeping your mouth shut and your eyes lowered. It means smiling brightly and nodding along. Yes, sir! Whatever you say, sir! It means never complaining.
No, what makes Asians a model minority is that they have (as an average) a lower crime rate than whites, and they don't respond to welfare by huge increases in illegitimacy. Plus, they can compete with whites on race-blind tests, unlike other groups where the majority have to be given a large handicap to have any chance to compete for things such as higher-tier colleges. Also, they don't tend to burn down their cities when they feel slighted.
I suppose that it may be racist to congratulate Asians on this. But you know, if it bothers them that much, all they need to do is start committing more rapes and murders, and to encourage their children not to do well in school and then to blame the fact they don't do well on white racism and I am sure that eventually they will be able to escape that pesky label,
That is all.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Strangely Prophetic
A FedEx commercial featuring Steve Irwin from a few years ago.
An announcement about the end of "A Dress to Di for" contest shortly after the accident that killed Princess Diana.
I was just thinking about these recently (I remember seeing the commercial for the dress contest back in the summer of '97 and remember seeing the Steve Irwin ad a few years ago) and about how weirdly prophetic they seem in retrospect.
That is all.
An announcement about the end of "A Dress to Di for" contest shortly after the accident that killed Princess Diana.
I was just thinking about these recently (I remember seeing the commercial for the dress contest back in the summer of '97 and remember seeing the Steve Irwin ad a few years ago) and about how weirdly prophetic they seem in retrospect.
That is all.
Reverend Wright is a Racial Issue - and Rightly So
One interesting thing about the mainstream "conservative" treatment of the Reverend Wright controversy is the fact that most of the Wright critics downplay, dismiss, or deny the racial component of this.
There is often a sort of disclaimer to say that "it's not the color of his skin, but the things he said," or the statement (true enough) that they would do the same thing with a white pastor who said the same things.
What does not get mentioned too often, though, is the fact that there is indeed a racial element, but that this element is totally legitimate.
A lot of people, when seeing what Reverend Wright says, think "is this what he believes?" And then they think "do most blacks agree with him?" When they realize that a large number of black people do indeed view the U.S. as a country that is defined primarily by its racism, a lot of htem wonder "do we really want a black person as President if he believes this way?"
And that is a perfectly legitimate question, as "racist" as it may seem.
As Steve Sailer has pointed out, it is not Wright so much as Obama's own radicalism in the past that is at issue here. Wright is just a revealer of Obama's (former?) radicalism rather than the real issue per se.
That is all.
There is often a sort of disclaimer to say that "it's not the color of his skin, but the things he said," or the statement (true enough) that they would do the same thing with a white pastor who said the same things.
What does not get mentioned too often, though, is the fact that there is indeed a racial element, but that this element is totally legitimate.
A lot of people, when seeing what Reverend Wright says, think "is this what he believes?" And then they think "do most blacks agree with him?" When they realize that a large number of black people do indeed view the U.S. as a country that is defined primarily by its racism, a lot of htem wonder "do we really want a black person as President if he believes this way?"
And that is a perfectly legitimate question, as "racist" as it may seem.
As Steve Sailer has pointed out, it is not Wright so much as Obama's own radicalism in the past that is at issue here. Wright is just a revealer of Obama's (former?) radicalism rather than the real issue per se.
That is all.
Friday, May 09, 2008
April 2008 Constitution Party Ballot Access
Here is a ballot access map for the Constitution Party as of April 1, 2008:
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 April issue of Ballot Access News (I received it around April 1, and added a few states in because their changed status was announced around the same time). [Because I based the map on the hardcopy newsletter, and have not proofread it against the online version, it may not match the statistics at the link if anything has been corrected or altered prior to posting the issue online].
If you don't want your ballot access tables to be one month out of date, you need to subscribe to Ballot Access News.
That is all.
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 April issue of Ballot Access News (I received it around April 1, and added a few states in because their changed status was announced around the same time). [Because I based the map on the hardcopy newsletter, and have not proofread it against the online version, it may not match the statistics at the link if anything has been corrected or altered prior to posting the issue online].
If you don't want your ballot access tables to be one month out of date, you need to subscribe to Ballot Access News.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Ballot Access Map to be Updated Shortly.
I have been a little busy, but I will try to get to it this weekend.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
42 Hostile Coalition Deaths in Iraq Last Month
This is the highest level since last September.
I suppose it is too early to say for certain that the recent lull in violence in beginning to reverse itself, but presumably we will have a better idea at the end of this month.
That is all.
I suppose it is too early to say for certain that the recent lull in violence in beginning to reverse itself, but presumably we will have a better idea at the end of this month.
That is all.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
British National Party Ad
Local papers in Wigan, England, have refused to run a British National Party (BNP) advertisement that criticizes Britain's immigration policy. (See VFR for more on this).
Here is the advertisement by the BNP that the newspapers are refusing to run.
That is all.
Here is the advertisement by the BNP that the newspapers are refusing to run.
That is all.
Monday, April 21, 2008
John McCain Delenda Est
After reading this, this, and this, I havecome to the conclusion that I want John McCain to LOSE, LOSE, LOSE.
No, I won't vote for Hillary or Barack Junior, but I will be voting (and rallying for) a third party with the express purpose of keeping Nukem McAmnesty out of the White House.
(Links from LRC blog).
That is all.
No, I won't vote for Hillary or Barack Junior, but I will be voting (and rallying for) a third party with the express purpose of keeping Nukem McAmnesty out of the White House.
(Links from LRC blog).
That is all.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
On Supporting the Troops
I support the troops in the sense that, if they are to stay in Iraq, I would rather that they succeed than that they fail. (By succeed I mean that they accomplish goals that protect American interests).
However, I am against the war because I believe that it is an inefficient use of our troops and will more likely fail than succeed and that leaving Iraq will protect our interests more than staying.
That being said, if the only way to "support the troops" is to tongue-kiss Bush's rectum, then screw the troops.
Moreover, if any U.S. soldier tells me (of his own volition) that he wants me to support the President, and that he doesn't feel supported if I don't kiss the President's heinie, that soldier can go to Hell.
That is all.
However, I am against the war because I believe that it is an inefficient use of our troops and will more likely fail than succeed and that leaving Iraq will protect our interests more than staying.
That being said, if the only way to "support the troops" is to tongue-kiss Bush's rectum, then screw the troops.
Moreover, if any U.S. soldier tells me (of his own volition) that he wants me to support the President, and that he doesn't feel supported if I don't kiss the President's heinie, that soldier can go to Hell.
That is all.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
An Excellent Rejoinder to Obama
Patrick Deneen (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to John Savage:
Someone should advise him to go to Latrobe and say the following instead:
“You go to these big liberal cities in California, and like a lot of cosmopolitan centers of libertarian lifestyle individualism, they have benefited from the wrenching displacements you’ve experienced. They benefited immensely from free-trade and globalizing policies of previous Administrations - Democratic and Republican alike - and they’ve been told that they have earned their status and they owe nothing to anyone.
“And it’s not surprising that they get optimistic, they believe that they can dispense with religion or borders or community as a way to remake the world in exactly their image.”
Right on.
Someone should advise him to go to Latrobe and say the following instead:
“You go to these big liberal cities in California, and like a lot of cosmopolitan centers of libertarian lifestyle individualism, they have benefited from the wrenching displacements you’ve experienced. They benefited immensely from free-trade and globalizing policies of previous Administrations - Democratic and Republican alike - and they’ve been told that they have earned their status and they owe nothing to anyone.
“And it’s not surprising that they get optimistic, they believe that they can dispense with religion or borders or community as a way to remake the world in exactly their image.”
Right on.
Murray Rothbard on Malcolm X
While Rothbard is, in my opinion, a little hard on blacks in general, I like his piece on the general interpretation of Malcolm X, in part because it cuts through all of the garbage that we tend to hear the PC crowd tell us about how we need to understand muderous rage and need to acknowledge the legitimacy of the desire of many black people to externinate us.
I must admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about Malcolm X due to his apparent alteration in his racial thinking after his conversion to orthodox Islam a year or so prior to his death. And certainly some of the most militant blacks are also the most socially conservative in their ideas about how the black community should act.
However, the idea that all of the responsibility for improving race relations lies with whites, orthat we need to shut up and let the minorities dictate all of the terms of the debate - which often seems to be the mood when discussing Mr. X - or the idea that whites are intrinsically racist and htat nothing we can do is ever good enough for blacks - well, I am sick of it and I think that this piece provides a good counterpoint.
That is all.
I must admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about Malcolm X due to his apparent alteration in his racial thinking after his conversion to orthodox Islam a year or so prior to his death. And certainly some of the most militant blacks are also the most socially conservative in their ideas about how the black community should act.
However, the idea that all of the responsibility for improving race relations lies with whites, orthat we need to shut up and let the minorities dictate all of the terms of the debate - which often seems to be the mood when discussing Mr. X - or the idea that whites are intrinsically racist and htat nothing we can do is ever good enough for blacks - well, I am sick of it and I think that this piece provides a good counterpoint.
That is all.
Letter to the Boston Herald Shows Open Borders Fallacies
A woman (I presume) named Mary Hopkins recently wrote a letter that appeared in the Boston Herald:
The “long-established” process for welcoming people to this country has changed drastically in the last 20 years. We are no longer the most welcoming country.
Note that she provides no references here. I was under the impression that U.S. immigration laws were pretty welcoming compared to those of most, perhaps all, other countries. (I will try to get some statistics to publish if I can find any comparative statistics to refer to).
If you don’t have an advanced degree, capital or a relative who already has legal status, then your chances of gaining entry here as a legal immigrant are very small indeed.
And this is a problem why? Why should we let in people who are more likely to become social services parasites?
People don’t come here without documents because it’s a nuisance to fill out the paperwork. They come here that way because it’s the only way open to them
Perhaps if they cannot get in here legally they should take the hint and stay out.
Ms. Hopkins obviously suffers from the delusion that what angers people about illegal immigrants is that they have not filled out proper paperwork. No, what angers us is that they come into the country uninvited, and that they do not allow us to choose who we wish to let in and who we do not.
Ms. Hopkins' argument is akin to saying that if someone crashes a party, the host is at fault for not inviting him.
We must create an orderly, accessible and reasonable process by which people can apply to come here as immigrants.
We do. We just don't have a process that grants everyone's application.
It would also be good to create a process by which undocumented immigrants who had not committed offenses besides being here could regularize their status.
How about by going home, where their status will already be perfectly regular?
People get blamed for not doing their paperwork, but when someone offers a way to make it possible, the shriek of “amnesty” goes up.
No, people get blamed for coming into the country without being invited. And if it is suggested that we mut extend invitations to unwanted "party-crashers," that is indeed amnesty.
Under present law the great majority of the undocumented cannot clear up their status.
Sure they do. It's called "going back to where they came from."
This shows the sickness of the opne borders lobby. The U.S. people have no right to control the borders of thier country, and the interests of the immigrants ought to be the sole determining factor in our immigration policy.
That is all.
The “long-established” process for welcoming people to this country has changed drastically in the last 20 years. We are no longer the most welcoming country.
Note that she provides no references here. I was under the impression that U.S. immigration laws were pretty welcoming compared to those of most, perhaps all, other countries. (I will try to get some statistics to publish if I can find any comparative statistics to refer to).
If you don’t have an advanced degree, capital or a relative who already has legal status, then your chances of gaining entry here as a legal immigrant are very small indeed.
And this is a problem why? Why should we let in people who are more likely to become social services parasites?
People don’t come here without documents because it’s a nuisance to fill out the paperwork. They come here that way because it’s the only way open to them
Perhaps if they cannot get in here legally they should take the hint and stay out.
Ms. Hopkins obviously suffers from the delusion that what angers people about illegal immigrants is that they have not filled out proper paperwork. No, what angers us is that they come into the country uninvited, and that they do not allow us to choose who we wish to let in and who we do not.
Ms. Hopkins' argument is akin to saying that if someone crashes a party, the host is at fault for not inviting him.
We must create an orderly, accessible and reasonable process by which people can apply to come here as immigrants.
We do. We just don't have a process that grants everyone's application.
It would also be good to create a process by which undocumented immigrants who had not committed offenses besides being here could regularize their status.
How about by going home, where their status will already be perfectly regular?
People get blamed for not doing their paperwork, but when someone offers a way to make it possible, the shriek of “amnesty” goes up.
No, people get blamed for coming into the country without being invited. And if it is suggested that we mut extend invitations to unwanted "party-crashers," that is indeed amnesty.
Under present law the great majority of the undocumented cannot clear up their status.
Sure they do. It's called "going back to where they came from."
This shows the sickness of the opne borders lobby. The U.S. people have no right to control the borders of thier country, and the interests of the immigrants ought to be the sole determining factor in our immigration policy.
That is all.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Tom Tancredo, Go to Hell
Tom Tancredo endorses John McCain*, not just because he feels that McCain is the lesser of two evils:
Tancredo... said Thursday he'll go ahead and back his longtime immigration-reform foe, McCain, because he thinks either of the Democratic alternatives would be worse.
"Sometimes I say to myself, 'Can I really do this?' " Tancredo said of supporting McCain. "And then you listen to Obama or Hillary and say, 'Yeah, I have to.' "
but also because he rejects possible alternatives for not wanting to kill Muslims badly enough:
Despite Barr's immigration stands, Tancredo said he could not support him because of his foreign policy stands, including "a blind spot on radical Islam."
As Daniel Larison points out, this generally simply means that Barr isn't supportive of the unitary executive or the gutting of civil liberties (or, I would add, that Barr isn't gung-ho enough about "killing all them ragheads over there").
He does give pragmatic reasons for opposing Barr, which again amounts to "whatever it takes to stop Obama or Clinton," which is at least an argument not based on murderous bloodthirstiness, but which is also based on the sort of gutless cowardice that is going to destroy the GOP and give the country over to the socialists if it is not jettisoned in favor of principle and courage:
He added that he believes Barr's candidacy is a serious threat to Republican chances in November, because it could siphon off conservative voters who are skeptical of McCain.
If Tancredo doesn't have any courage, he can go to Hell.
*Supporting him is endorsing him Tancredo's playing little Clinton-esque word games.
That is all.
Tancredo... said Thursday he'll go ahead and back his longtime immigration-reform foe, McCain, because he thinks either of the Democratic alternatives would be worse.
"Sometimes I say to myself, 'Can I really do this?' " Tancredo said of supporting McCain. "And then you listen to Obama or Hillary and say, 'Yeah, I have to.' "
but also because he rejects possible alternatives for not wanting to kill Muslims badly enough:
Despite Barr's immigration stands, Tancredo said he could not support him because of his foreign policy stands, including "a blind spot on radical Islam."
As Daniel Larison points out, this generally simply means that Barr isn't supportive of the unitary executive or the gutting of civil liberties (or, I would add, that Barr isn't gung-ho enough about "killing all them ragheads over there").
He does give pragmatic reasons for opposing Barr, which again amounts to "whatever it takes to stop Obama or Clinton," which is at least an argument not based on murderous bloodthirstiness, but which is also based on the sort of gutless cowardice that is going to destroy the GOP and give the country over to the socialists if it is not jettisoned in favor of principle and courage:
He added that he believes Barr's candidacy is a serious threat to Republican chances in November, because it could siphon off conservative voters who are skeptical of McCain.
If Tancredo doesn't have any courage, he can go to Hell.
*Supporting him is endorsing him Tancredo's playing little Clinton-esque word games.
That is all.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Another Incomplete Rally to the "War on Islamic Extremism"
Henry Lamb writes an article exhorting us to continue the war in Iraq because we are the only ones who can "stop Islamic extremism."
I am not impressed for at least two reasons:
First, his understanding of World War II is off:
When Hitler set out to conquer the world, it was American blood, treasure and determination that stopped him.
No, it was mostly Soviet blood, treasure, and determination that stopped him. Something like 3/4 of German deaths were at Soviet hands.
He also doesn't seem to have any idea what to do about Islamic extremism except for "stay in Iraq and Afghanistan." What he hopes to accomplish there is not made clear.
That's a big problem with a lot of the pro-warriors. They assert the evilness of Islam (or Islamic extremism) or somesuch as the reason to stay in Iraq, but they don't exactly make clear how we are going to make vertian htat Iraq stays in moderate Muslim hands, or, if they see Islam as irredeemably destructive to our interests, how they plan to prevent Muslims from eventually ruling a Muslim country.
That is all.
I am not impressed for at least two reasons:
First, his understanding of World War II is off:
When Hitler set out to conquer the world, it was American blood, treasure and determination that stopped him.
No, it was mostly Soviet blood, treasure, and determination that stopped him. Something like 3/4 of German deaths were at Soviet hands.
He also doesn't seem to have any idea what to do about Islamic extremism except for "stay in Iraq and Afghanistan." What he hopes to accomplish there is not made clear.
That's a big problem with a lot of the pro-warriors. They assert the evilness of Islam (or Islamic extremism) or somesuch as the reason to stay in Iraq, but they don't exactly make clear how we are going to make vertian htat Iraq stays in moderate Muslim hands, or, if they see Islam as irredeemably destructive to our interests, how they plan to prevent Muslims from eventually ruling a Muslim country.
That is all.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
I Hate Mighty Mouse
I love my flat-screen Imac.
But Apple's obsession with single button mouses is stupid. I finally threw my mighty mouse against the wall and broke it today after the umpteenth time that it could not distinguish between a right-click and a left-click. (I am currently using the older PC mouse that I use with my older Mac). The "cool design" of having one button that you control by where you click it is functionally inferior to having a mouse with multiple buttons with definite, easy-to-see boundaries between them. I am going to see if I can get a wireless, Mac-compatible PC mouse tomorrow, Friday, or over the weekend.
That is all.
But Apple's obsession with single button mouses is stupid. I finally threw my mighty mouse against the wall and broke it today after the umpteenth time that it could not distinguish between a right-click and a left-click. (I am currently using the older PC mouse that I use with my older Mac). The "cool design" of having one button that you control by where you click it is functionally inferior to having a mouse with multiple buttons with definite, easy-to-see boundaries between them. I am going to see if I can get a wireless, Mac-compatible PC mouse tomorrow, Friday, or over the weekend.
That is all.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
March 2008 Constitution Party Ballot Access (2008 Presidential Race)
This is the status of the Constitution Party ballot access campaign as of late February 2008:
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 March issue of Ballot Access News (I received it on February 28 or 29). [Because I based the map on the hardcopy newsletter, and have not proofread it against the online version, it may not match the statistics at the link if anything has been corrected or altered prior to posting the issue online].
At some point, I will try to organize all of my previous maps so that a person can see the progress of the campaign over time.
That is all.
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 March issue of Ballot Access News (I received it on February 28 or 29). [Because I based the map on the hardcopy newsletter, and have not proofread it against the online version, it may not match the statistics at the link if anything has been corrected or altered prior to posting the issue online].
At some point, I will try to organize all of my previous maps so that a person can see the progress of the campaign over time.
That is all.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Separation of Church and Faith
If this report is acurate, it is a disturbing look into the results and goals of hate-crimes" legislation.
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Gender-Bender
Via Sully, I find this article about a "man" who is pregnant.
You know, if my wife goes crazy and thinks she is a dog, it does not mean that if we have a kid it is a puppy. The person is obviously still anatomically and biologically a woman.
This quote from the third page, is, I find, in some ways the most humorous:
On successfully getting pregnant a second time, we are proud to announce that this pregnancy is free of complications and our baby girl has a clean bill of health.
Really? How do we know that it is a baby girl? Maybe it's a baby boy with a vagina - you know, like his "father."
That is all.
You know, if my wife goes crazy and thinks she is a dog, it does not mean that if we have a kid it is a puppy. The person is obviously still anatomically and biologically a woman.
This quote from the third page, is, I find, in some ways the most humorous:
On successfully getting pregnant a second time, we are proud to announce that this pregnancy is free of complications and our baby girl has a clean bill of health.
Really? How do we know that it is a baby girl? Maybe it's a baby boy with a vagina - you know, like his "father."
That is all.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Separation of Church and State
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.
This was brought to mind during this exchange.
That is all.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)