Lawrence Auster has the details.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Buck for Chuck
To all who like the Constitution Party -
Today is Buck for Chuck Day, the September 20 moneybomb for the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Please visit his website and make a donation.
That is all.
Today is Buck for Chuck Day, the September 20 moneybomb for the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Please visit his website and make a donation.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Farah: I've Bent Over. Please Give it to Me.
Joseph Farah once again finds a way to sort of endorse McCain, but without really saying so.
Joseph Farah, bending over - again.
That is all.
Joseph Farah, bending over - again.
That is all.
Ballot Access Maps September 16, 2008
Click here for the ballot access maps.
I'm sorry for not posting them on the site, but PicAttic sitll isn't hotlinking, and I do not have the time to find another image hosting service right now.
As always, my maps are based on Richard Winger's Ballot Access Chart on his Ballot Access News website.
Note: My map contains an error. Nader is on the ballot in Vermont. I will correct it later.
That is all.
I'm sorry for not posting them on the site, but PicAttic sitll isn't hotlinking, and I do not have the time to find another image hosting service right now.
As always, my maps are based on Richard Winger's Ballot Access Chart on his Ballot Access News website.
Note: My map contains an error. Nader is on the ballot in Vermont. I will correct it later.
That is all.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
We made it to 270
By my calculations, the Constitution Party is on the ballot in states with an electoral vote total of 295. It will be 304 if we get on in Alabama (the Party has submitted its signatures, and is waiting for the decision), and 325 if the ballot access lawsuit in Pennsylvania succeeds.
We definitely need to do better next time, but at least we made the magic number.
That is all.
We definitely need to do better next time, but at least we made the magic number.
That is all.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Ballot Access Maps Updated September 9, 2008
Due to PicAttic's hot-linking problems, I am posting links to the images that you can click on to see the maps. This will be easier for now. If anyone would like to host these images and let me hotlink to them until the problems are resolved, please let me know.
Click here to see all maps on one page.
Libertarian Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Constitution Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Green Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Ralph Nader Presidential Ballot Access 2008
That is all.
Click here to see all maps on one page.
Libertarian Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Constitution Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Green Party Presidential Ballot Access 2008
Ralph Nader Presidential Ballot Access 2008
That is all.
Obama Steals my Line!
Obama says something similar to what I myself have said:
Obama - ""You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Me - "Whatever she may call herself, Palin is less a pitbull with lipstick than she is the lipstick on a pig. And that pig's name is McCain."
Unfortunately, I did not post that on my blog before Obama made his statement, but I can still accuse him of stealing it from me, because I did post it elsewhere.
Of course, Obama was referring to McCain's "change" rhetoric, while i was referring to the meaningless (in practical terms) of McCain's choice of Palin.
That is all.
Obama - ""You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Me - "Whatever she may call herself, Palin is less a pitbull with lipstick than she is the lipstick on a pig. And that pig's name is McCain."
Unfortunately, I did not post that on my blog before Obama made his statement, but I can still accuse him of stealing it from me, because I did post it elsewhere.
Of course, Obama was referring to McCain's "change" rhetoric, while i was referring to the meaningless (in practical terms) of McCain's choice of Palin.
That is all.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
More on Augustawell
I recently switched my image hosting from Flickr to PicAttic and am in the process of moving all of my images there. Unfortuantely, PicAttic has been acting up, so updates on the ballot access map may be a little slow, and new posts on Augustawell may be as well. I may replace my hotlinks with "cold" links to the photos on PicAttic so that I can post new stuff and people can see it, although it will be an extra step.
Also, I will be writing Augustawell a little more slowly over the next few weeks than I was during June, July, and early August, as there is a lot more on my plate now.
That is all.
Also, I will be writing Augustawell a little more slowly over the next few weeks than I was during June, July, and early August, as there is a lot more on my plate now.
That is all.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Farah on McCain
Whatever one thinks of Palin, I think Joseph Farah hits the nail on the head as to why McCain must be opposed.
Although I think that whoever is elected this November, we can stop amnesty if we work together.
That is all.
Although I think that whoever is elected this November, we can stop amnesty if we work together.
That is all.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Monday, September 01, 2008
I Remember Her from Way Back When
But not very well.
I just found out that the woman playing Shana "Scarlett" O'Hara in the new G.I. Joe movie (coming next year) is someone I remember from Middle School (specifically I remember her when she was in seventh grade and I was in eighth). I also went to high school with her (well, my sophomore through senior years anyway, she would have been in eighth grade when I was a freshman), but I cannot remember a single thing about her from those days.
That is all.
I just found out that the woman playing Shana "Scarlett" O'Hara in the new G.I. Joe movie (coming next year) is someone I remember from Middle School (specifically I remember her when she was in seventh grade and I was in eighth). I also went to high school with her (well, my sophomore through senior years anyway, she would have been in eighth grade when I was a freshman), but I cannot remember a single thing about her from those days.
That is all.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Housekeeping
I'm not sure what to make of McCain's VP choice, Sarah Palin. More on it as I develop an opinion.
As for Augustawell, I have been having problems with my image server, but that should be geting better soon. I have about a "week's worth" (i.e. seven) of comics written beyond what is posted, but getting them scanned in, colored, and posted takes time.
That is all.
As for Augustawell, I have been having problems with my image server, but that should be geting better soon. I have about a "week's worth" (i.e. seven) of comics written beyond what is posted, but getting them scanned in, colored, and posted takes time.
That is all.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Alan Keyes Successfully Steals Baldwin's Ballot Access
The lawsuit against Keyes was dismissed on a technicality.
However, I have heard that Baldwin will still be eligible as a write-in.
I really, really hate Alan Keyes, and Ed Noonan and Mark Seidenberg, as well. I believe them to be dirty thieves. I originally wrote something a little more graphic here, but I decided to tone it down a little.
That is all.
However, I have heard that Baldwin will still be eligible as a write-in.
I really, really hate Alan Keyes, and Ed Noonan and Mark Seidenberg, as well. I believe them to be dirty thieves. I originally wrote something a little more graphic here, but I decided to tone it down a little.
That is all.
Trouble with Image Hosting
I have some new ballot access maps. As soon as my image hosting service is up again, I will post them.
That is all.
That is all.
Sorry About Light Posting
And about the elay in Augustawell updates. I have been very busy with family matters, and with getting write-in status for Chuck Baldwin in Maine for the past week or so. I'll try to get another Augustawell up tomorrow, and some more blogging sometime this week if I get a breather.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Standardized Testing
The SAT is useless, but the results of the No Child Left Behind math tests are completely valid to base a study about gender equality on.
What exactly is the difference here, other than that one of the tests appears to give the liberals the results they want as regarding equality?
That is all.
What exactly is the difference here, other than that one of the tests appears to give the liberals the results they want as regarding equality?
That is all.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Jack Cashill's Stupidty/Mendacity
Jack Cashill tries to convince us that everything we were told about Iraq in the build-up to war was true, and that the calims of a failure to find WMDs, etc. are lies and deliberate ignorance by the media.
First, he mentions how Richard Butler claimed that Saddam was developing WMD capacity after Butler was booted out of Iraq in 1998. Of course, not mentioned is that Clinton was using the inspections to conduct espionage with the intent of bringing Saddam's government down. Seeing as we are constantly misled about that, it is rather disingenuous to assume that his statement must be trusted.
Secondly, he talks about Spencer Abraham in 2004 claiming that 1.77 tons of uranium had been moved out of Iraq by the U.S. The problem here is that no one denies that Saddam had uranium. The point is, it had been declared to the IAEA, it had been sealed and was not in a weaponized form, and if we had wanted him to get rid of it, we should have demanded that the declared uranium be removed; rather than invading Iraq on the pre-text of developed or developing weapons that we said he was hiding.
Thirdly, he mentions how the media ignored Douglas Feith's book describing the role that WMDs played in us going to war. Of course, that Douglas Feith may not exactly be an honest, unbiased broker is nowhere considered. That eneral Tommy Franks has, er - a colorful way of describing him (warning: language) is not mentioned either. Rather, we are told by Jack Cashill simply that Feith "knew what was going on" (and of course, we presume him to be truthful).
Fourthly, he mentions Iraqi General Georges Sada's claims that the WMDs were ferried to Syria - ignoring, of course, the question of why Saddam would keep those WMDs if he was not going to use them. That this guy might just be trying to get on the good side of the U.S. government by telling it what it wants to hear is not considered.
Fifthly, he mentions that Don Bordenkircher had a lot of prisoners boast of transporting warheads to Syria.
Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."
Gosh, what motive could these people have for lying? And of course, if we used enhanced interrogation techniques on them, obviously they would tell us the truth; I mean that is what these techniques are good for, not for getting people to tell us what we want to hear.
Sixthly, he claims that we know where the WMDs are but the U.S. government won't look there. This sounds very much like Michael Ledeen's similar claims, and ultimately relies on believing that the U.S. government is run by people who desperately want to cover up the evidence that would vindicate them.
According to Cashill, the reason why the administration has avoided revelaing that there are WMDs is to keep the bad guys uninformed, apparently so that they won't get to the MD before we have secured Iraq enough to secure it all.
"Sometimes," [George Tenet] writes, "it is even useful to have positive accomplishments misperceived as failures, to throw foreign governments and rogue organizations off the scent."
Yes, this must be it. The Bush administration is so famously competent that is obviously capable of such a misdirection.
The administration's openness about the recent removal of a 550 metric ton yellowcake cache suggests a change in strategy in a newly secure Iraq.
Except that, as references here and here, "the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law."
Cashill pretends to deal with this:
To be sure, the major media and the liberal bloggers have done their best to downplay the potency of the material and the political significance of its removal. After all, they tell us, everyone knew the yellowcake was there all along.
Here is an article from 2003 proving that we Hussein was known to possess uranium all along.
From the article: Experts say Tuwaitha, which was sealed off by U.N. inspectors in 1991, holds 500 metric tons of uranium and other radioactive materials that could pose health risks or even a terrorist threat if it gets into the wrong hands.
But Cashill, instead of spending 5 minutes on Google, instead he says:
But the question has to be asked: If everyone knew it was there, why were the Democrats so eager to pull American troops and cede the yellowcake to whoever controlled the ground?
Uh - if it is that dangerous, we should have removed it all much much earlier. Besides, it isn't exactly weapons grade.
The fact that a Canadian uranium producer was willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for the yellowcake suggests its potential for future harm in the hands of al-Qaida or other terrorists.
Yes, all they will need is to set up large, industrial scale nuclear infrastructure. This is why we also need to worry about whether or not Iraq has aluminum or iron reserves; if Al Qaeda gets their hands on those, they might be able to build battleships and aircraft carriers to use against us.
In short, Jack Cashill is caught in at least one obvious lie, so one should be careful about trusting all of his other points, which are largely based on nothing more than Cashill's imputation of trustyworthiness on a bunch of fairly sketchy sources.
That is all.
First, he mentions how Richard Butler claimed that Saddam was developing WMD capacity after Butler was booted out of Iraq in 1998. Of course, not mentioned is that Clinton was using the inspections to conduct espionage with the intent of bringing Saddam's government down. Seeing as we are constantly misled about that, it is rather disingenuous to assume that his statement must be trusted.
Secondly, he talks about Spencer Abraham in 2004 claiming that 1.77 tons of uranium had been moved out of Iraq by the U.S. The problem here is that no one denies that Saddam had uranium. The point is, it had been declared to the IAEA, it had been sealed and was not in a weaponized form, and if we had wanted him to get rid of it, we should have demanded that the declared uranium be removed; rather than invading Iraq on the pre-text of developed or developing weapons that we said he was hiding.
Thirdly, he mentions how the media ignored Douglas Feith's book describing the role that WMDs played in us going to war. Of course, that Douglas Feith may not exactly be an honest, unbiased broker is nowhere considered. That eneral Tommy Franks has, er - a colorful way of describing him (warning: language) is not mentioned either. Rather, we are told by Jack Cashill simply that Feith "knew what was going on" (and of course, we presume him to be truthful).
Fourthly, he mentions Iraqi General Georges Sada's claims that the WMDs were ferried to Syria - ignoring, of course, the question of why Saddam would keep those WMDs if he was not going to use them. That this guy might just be trying to get on the good side of the U.S. government by telling it what it wants to hear is not considered.
Fifthly, he mentions that Don Bordenkircher had a lot of prisoners boast of transporting warheads to Syria.
Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."
Gosh, what motive could these people have for lying? And of course, if we used enhanced interrogation techniques on them, obviously they would tell us the truth; I mean that is what these techniques are good for, not for getting people to tell us what we want to hear.
Sixthly, he claims that we know where the WMDs are but the U.S. government won't look there. This sounds very much like Michael Ledeen's similar claims, and ultimately relies on believing that the U.S. government is run by people who desperately want to cover up the evidence that would vindicate them.
According to Cashill, the reason why the administration has avoided revelaing that there are WMDs is to keep the bad guys uninformed, apparently so that they won't get to the MD before we have secured Iraq enough to secure it all.
"Sometimes," [George Tenet] writes, "it is even useful to have positive accomplishments misperceived as failures, to throw foreign governments and rogue organizations off the scent."
Yes, this must be it. The Bush administration is so famously competent that is obviously capable of such a misdirection.
The administration's openness about the recent removal of a 550 metric ton yellowcake cache suggests a change in strategy in a newly secure Iraq.
Except that, as references here and here, "the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law."
Cashill pretends to deal with this:
To be sure, the major media and the liberal bloggers have done their best to downplay the potency of the material and the political significance of its removal. After all, they tell us, everyone knew the yellowcake was there all along.
Here is an article from 2003 proving that we Hussein was known to possess uranium all along.
From the article: Experts say Tuwaitha, which was sealed off by U.N. inspectors in 1991, holds 500 metric tons of uranium and other radioactive materials that could pose health risks or even a terrorist threat if it gets into the wrong hands.
But Cashill, instead of spending 5 minutes on Google, instead he says:
But the question has to be asked: If everyone knew it was there, why were the Democrats so eager to pull American troops and cede the yellowcake to whoever controlled the ground?
Uh - if it is that dangerous, we should have removed it all much much earlier. Besides, it isn't exactly weapons grade.
The fact that a Canadian uranium producer was willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for the yellowcake suggests its potential for future harm in the hands of al-Qaida or other terrorists.
Yes, all they will need is to set up large, industrial scale nuclear infrastructure. This is why we also need to worry about whether or not Iraq has aluminum or iron reserves; if Al Qaeda gets their hands on those, they might be able to build battleships and aircraft carriers to use against us.
In short, Jack Cashill is caught in at least one obvious lie, so one should be careful about trusting all of his other points, which are largely based on nothing more than Cashill's imputation of trustyworthiness on a bunch of fairly sketchy sources.
That is all.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Keeping the Ron Paul Revolution Alive
Paul Congress is a good site for those who wish to support Ron Paul-esque candidates.
Here is Ron Paul's Liberty Pac if you would like to support the cause in general without bothering to find specific candidates.
That is all.
Here is Ron Paul's Liberty Pac if you would like to support the cause in general without bothering to find specific candidates.
That is all.
Friday, August 01, 2008
New Ballot Access Maps are Up!
UPDATE: Apparently I made an error and made the link to my Augustawell comic strip. It is now fixed. If the link in the blog doesn't work, click the "Ballot Access Maps" links on the sidebar, and it should usually take you to the right place.
Click right here!
That is all.
Click right here!
That is all.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Outrageous
UPDATE: The donation has been made.
The Maine Democratic Party managed ot get independent Herb Hoffman removed from the ballot on a minor technicality.
I think that every single person in the Maine Democratic Party who was involved with this is a disgrace to the human race and ought to hide their faces in shame.
But in terms of things I can actually do, guess what? I am donating $100.00 to Senator Collins' campaign, just to spite that bastard Tom Allen.
That is all.
The Maine Democratic Party managed ot get independent Herb Hoffman removed from the ballot on a minor technicality.
I think that every single person in the Maine Democratic Party who was involved with this is a disgrace to the human race and ought to hide their faces in shame.
But in terms of things I can actually do, guess what? I am donating $100.00 to Senator Collins' campaign, just to spite that bastard Tom Allen.
That is all.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Gender and Math
There's a bunch of Larry Summers hate at Alas, a Blog based on a new study that says that girls and boys are doing just as well at math on average.
Evidence of lower scoring by females on the SAT is "explained away" according to the study as the result of more girls (and thus presumably a less selective sample of girls) taking the SAT (a traditional explanation that is not mentioned is that boys have a higher standard deviaiton than girls do, so if you test only the top half of the bell curve men will do better on average).
What is not mentioned, though, is the second half of the article, where it is stated that the tests used in the study did not include problems involving complex reasoning.
My guess on the probable translation: The NCLB tests are designed largely to test the most basic skills that almost everyone can have. That the tests may have been adjusted deliberately to acheive gender parity is not considered in the article, nor in the Alas post, which simply assumes that the issue has been settled once and for all.
So where do I stand on this? I doubt that there are as many females as males in the higher percentiles of math ability. Although it is likely that there are more females with math ability than actually wind up using it. In other words, it is not unlikely that stereotypes based on actual statistical trends may wind up exaggerrating those trends. If only 25% of of the top 1% is girls, this might intimidate girls from studying math so that only 15% or 10% of those taking the top 1% classes are girls.
But ultimately, my main concern is that we try to allow people to take what they want and feel they have the aptitude for. The main reason why I think that skepticism of these reports of equality is important is because I do not want the government to take the risk of destroying our science, technology, and math programs with quotas.
That is all.
Evidence of lower scoring by females on the SAT is "explained away" according to the study as the result of more girls (and thus presumably a less selective sample of girls) taking the SAT (a traditional explanation that is not mentioned is that boys have a higher standard deviaiton than girls do, so if you test only the top half of the bell curve men will do better on average).
What is not mentioned, though, is the second half of the article, where it is stated that the tests used in the study did not include problems involving complex reasoning.
My guess on the probable translation: The NCLB tests are designed largely to test the most basic skills that almost everyone can have. That the tests may have been adjusted deliberately to acheive gender parity is not considered in the article, nor in the Alas post, which simply assumes that the issue has been settled once and for all.
So where do I stand on this? I doubt that there are as many females as males in the higher percentiles of math ability. Although it is likely that there are more females with math ability than actually wind up using it. In other words, it is not unlikely that stereotypes based on actual statistical trends may wind up exaggerrating those trends. If only 25% of of the top 1% is girls, this might intimidate girls from studying math so that only 15% or 10% of those taking the top 1% classes are girls.
But ultimately, my main concern is that we try to allow people to take what they want and feel they have the aptitude for. The main reason why I think that skepticism of these reports of equality is important is because I do not want the government to take the risk of destroying our science, technology, and math programs with quotas.
That is all.
Why Don't People Resent Angelina's Pregnancy but They Resent Welfare Mothers' Pregnancies?
Uh - maybe because Angelina Jolie can actually support her children?
The post I lknked to above is a classic example of how leftists do not understand how the world works. They seem to think that most people with money just have it handed to them, and that we can afford to support an endless stream of irresponsible people having babies they cannot afford. Why, they ask, can't we have a society that values all children and makes it so that women can reproduce whenever they want, with no material constraints whatsoever, with the government providing health care, daycare, etc.?
Maybe because all of the unproductive people will reporduce until there is no one to provide the goods they feel entitled to?
These leftists are like spoiled teenagers, thinking that they have a right to their parnets' money, and also a right to be free of their parents' control.
Oh, and I love the but about "what if thesse kids resent having to pay for your social security?" If I had confidence that most of these kids would grow up to be productive taxpaying citizens, then I might concede the point. But if they grow up to be criminals, or welfare-dependent, that really won't help me, will it?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Alas, a Blog for the link.
That is all.
The post I lknked to above is a classic example of how leftists do not understand how the world works. They seem to think that most people with money just have it handed to them, and that we can afford to support an endless stream of irresponsible people having babies they cannot afford. Why, they ask, can't we have a society that values all children and makes it so that women can reproduce whenever they want, with no material constraints whatsoever, with the government providing health care, daycare, etc.?
Maybe because all of the unproductive people will reporduce until there is no one to provide the goods they feel entitled to?
These leftists are like spoiled teenagers, thinking that they have a right to their parnets' money, and also a right to be free of their parents' control.
Oh, and I love the but about "what if thesse kids resent having to pay for your social security?" If I had confidence that most of these kids would grow up to be productive taxpaying citizens, then I might concede the point. But if they grow up to be criminals, or welfare-dependent, that really won't help me, will it?
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Alas, a Blog for the link.
That is all.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
They Never Learn
I heard Sean Hannity recently crowing about how Saddam did too have WMDs. Why, we just took hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium from there.
The problem, of course, is that this uranium has been there since the 70s or early 80s, and we've always known about it. Indeed, it was declared, Saddam was not hiding it, and it had been sealed by the IAEA. The NY Times' Lede blog hcomments on this,
If we thought it was dangerous, we could have always insisted on removing it while Saddam, was in power. It's not like this stuff was being kept from us.
To use this as proof that the administration was right about WMDs, or to use it to prove how ignorant the naysayers are, smacks either or complete ignorance or total dishonesty. Of course, that is par for the course with Seanny boy.
That is all.
The problem, of course, is that this uranium has been there since the 70s or early 80s, and we've always known about it. Indeed, it was declared, Saddam was not hiding it, and it had been sealed by the IAEA. The NY Times' Lede blog hcomments on this,
If we thought it was dangerous, we could have always insisted on removing it while Saddam, was in power. It's not like this stuff was being kept from us.
To use this as proof that the administration was right about WMDs, or to use it to prove how ignorant the naysayers are, smacks either or complete ignorance or total dishonesty. Of course, that is par for the course with Seanny boy.
That is all.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Bad News for the Constitution Party
The California Party is making a break.
More bad news: it looks increasingly unlikely that we will get ballot access in Maine, so we will have to settle for a write-in.
As the person who was organizing the ballot access drive in Maine, I am rather discouraged. This is part of the reason why I am having such a hard time doing political blogging, because this election is so depressing.
That is all.
More bad news: it looks increasingly unlikely that we will get ballot access in Maine, so we will have to settle for a write-in.
As the person who was organizing the ballot access drive in Maine, I am rather discouraged. This is part of the reason why I am having such a hard time doing political blogging, because this election is so depressing.
That is all.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sorry About Lack of Posting
I've been busy with Augustawell, an have also been somewhat discouraged about the political situation due to problems getting Baldwin on the ballot in Maine (I have wound up being the de facto ballot access guy). It's a long story, but I don't have the strength to think too much about politics for the next few days. In addition, there is a lot going on at work.
I'll try to post more soon, but I will probably be fairly quiet for a week or so.
That is all.
I'll try to post more soon, but I will probably be fairly quiet for a week or so.
That is all.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Tony Snow, RIP
I was actually one of the first bloggers to mention his "tarbaby" comment 2 years ago, and it got me the highest single-day traffic my blog has ever had.
I have a brother who is currently being treated for colon cancer, so this death is rather poignant for me.
That is all.
I have a brother who is currently being treated for colon cancer, so this death is rather poignant for me.
That is all.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Liberal Stupidity on Helms
Yggy comments on a quote from Ed Kilgore, which includes this:
When the AIDS epidemic emerged in the 1980s, Helms began an extended and violently worded campaign to "protect" Americans from the "perverts" whose "disgusting" habits were responsible for AIDS, while attacking efforts to find effective treatments.
While attacking efforts to find effective treatments would be bad (although I have a feeling that that is a rather uncharitable reading of Helms' position), I fail to see how the first part of Helms position is actually wrong in any way, despite the myriad efforts to portray AIDS as a "equal opportunity disease."
What the left is really upset about here is that Helms did not buy into the politically correct lie that HIV did not discriminate.
Good for Helms and to heck with the lying liberals.
That is all.
When the AIDS epidemic emerged in the 1980s, Helms began an extended and violently worded campaign to "protect" Americans from the "perverts" whose "disgusting" habits were responsible for AIDS, while attacking efforts to find effective treatments.
While attacking efforts to find effective treatments would be bad (although I have a feeling that that is a rather uncharitable reading of Helms' position), I fail to see how the first part of Helms position is actually wrong in any way, despite the myriad efforts to portray AIDS as a "equal opportunity disease."
What the left is really upset about here is that Helms did not buy into the politically correct lie that HIV did not discriminate.
Good for Helms and to heck with the lying liberals.
That is all.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Write-in Rules
According to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, the following states ban write-ins:
All write-ins:
Oklahoma
Louisiana
South Dakota
Nevada
Hawaii
Write-ins for President:
South Carolina
Effectively bans write-ins for President, but not officially:
Arkansas
New Mexico
Fortunately for the Constitution Party, we are on the ballot on all of these except for Oklahoma and Louisiana (and Louisiana should be in the "ballot access granted" column very soon as all it requires is a filing fee).
Provided we can get write-in access in the states that have requirements for write-in status, people should be able to vote for Baldwin in 49 states (and presumably the District of Columbia).
That is all.
All write-ins:
Oklahoma
Louisiana
South Dakota
Nevada
Hawaii
Write-ins for President:
South Carolina
Effectively bans write-ins for President, but not officially:
Arkansas
New Mexico
Fortunately for the Constitution Party, we are on the ballot on all of these except for Oklahoma and Louisiana (and Louisiana should be in the "ballot access granted" column very soon as all it requires is a filing fee).
Provided we can get write-in access in the states that have requirements for write-in status, people should be able to vote for Baldwin in 49 states (and presumably the District of Columbia).
That is all.
Andrew Sullivan Does it Again
More and more, Sullivan is proving that he has no understanding of what Christianity actually means, describing the belief that Jesus is the only way to God as "sectarian bigotry."
He also gives us this beauty, in response to Obama saying "Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people":
I have a feeling that Obama's position is far closer to that of most believing Christians than Graham's. Which is why the right-wing Christianists are getting as afraid as the neocons.
I would suggest that he has never read John 14:6:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
except that Andrew has already stated that it is un-Christian to believe in the Bible, at least when you believe passages that do not square with Andrew's behavior or social philosophy.
Of course, determining Christianity by what people who call themselves Christians believe assumes essentially that man, not God, is supreme, and is s foolish idea anyway.
More by me on "Christianism" and here.
That is all.
He also gives us this beauty, in response to Obama saying "Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people":
I have a feeling that Obama's position is far closer to that of most believing Christians than Graham's. Which is why the right-wing Christianists are getting as afraid as the neocons.
I would suggest that he has never read John 14:6:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
except that Andrew has already stated that it is un-Christian to believe in the Bible, at least when you believe passages that do not square with Andrew's behavior or social philosophy.
Of course, determining Christianity by what people who call themselves Christians believe assumes essentially that man, not God, is supreme, and is s foolish idea anyway.
More by me on "Christianism" and here.
That is all.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Constitution Party Ballot Access
This is the map of the current status of Constitution Party Ballot Access Petitioning:
Data is from the Constitution Party's own website.
For Libertarian, Green, and Nader ballot access maps, click here.
That is all.
Data is from the Constitution Party's own website.
For Libertarian, Green, and Nader ballot access maps, click here.
That is all.
On World War II and Unconditional Surrender
One thing that no one has yet brought up on the VFR threads (1,2) about World War II is whether or not the "necessity" of making concessions to Stalin in 1944 and 1945, after the German army had been destroyed to the point that the eventual victory of the Allies was assured) was driven more by the desire to crush Germany and Japan than it was by the need for Stalin's help to make sure that Germany and Japan lost.
(I should point out here that this point is a little more nuanced than it appears; I am not suggesting that the Allies' desire to smash Germany and Japan or the demand for unconditional surrender was due merely to malice, just that it was not, in my opinion, a good idea that these goals were given such a high priority).
As I touched on in this post, and as Paul Gottfried has suggested, the demand for unconditional surrender may have prevented us from taking advantage of indigenous resistance to the Nazis, and may have prolonged the war in a way that helped no one but Stalin, who had finally begun to turn the war to his advantage.
That is all.
(I should point out here that this point is a little more nuanced than it appears; I am not suggesting that the Allies' desire to smash Germany and Japan or the demand for unconditional surrender was due merely to malice, just that it was not, in my opinion, a good idea that these goals were given such a high priority).
As I touched on in this post, and as Paul Gottfried has suggested, the demand for unconditional surrender may have prevented us from taking advantage of indigenous resistance to the Nazis, and may have prolonged the war in a way that helped no one but Stalin, who had finally begun to turn the war to his advantage.
That is all.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Even More on Augustawell
18 posts are up now.
The blog is a little ratty-looking, because I finally found out that I could revert to a classic template rather than fooling around with the "Layouts" garbage. The blog doesn't look quite as nice, but I know how to edit the template now and the strips don't get cut off at the right edge.
The "flap" is gone, so all of the author's commentary is visible, but I will re-institute it into my template as soon as possible.
That is all.
The blog is a little ratty-looking, because I finally found out that I could revert to a classic template rather than fooling around with the "Layouts" garbage. The blog doesn't look quite as nice, but I know how to edit the template now and the strips don't get cut off at the right edge.
The "flap" is gone, so all of the author's commentary is visible, but I will re-institute it into my template as soon as possible.
That is all.
Monday, June 30, 2008
On Buchanan's Book
I must admit that I do not know know enough about World War II history to make a real evaluation of Pat Buchanan's new book (also I have not read it yet). I do think that he is naive about Hitler's ambitions, though.
It does seem to me though, that the real fight here is less over World War II than it is over the present controversy over foreign policy.
I believe that a large part of Buchanan's contrariness about World War II is due to a conviction that it is the single best weapon that interventionists have to argue with. Therefore, if he can attack World War II as being an unnecessary intervention, then by extension all of the lesser interventions that he dislikes become invalid.
Likewise, the neocons and other pro-warriors have a need to see World War II in every conflict, and to see the lesson of World War II to be that we have to confront every petty tyrant with no mercy, before he commits any serious act of aggerssion, lest he become the next Hitler. (Look at how many of Buchanan's critics try to use the naivete of his World War II views as a parallel to his views on the Middle East, with the implication that anything less than a military attack on Iran would be Munich 1938 all over again).
Another supposed lesson from World War II (particularly in contrast to World War I) is the need for unconditional surrender and to crush our enemies completely in any war. The idea seems to be that negotiated surrenders or armistices are not acceptable. (Fortunately enough, this view has not predominated among actual policymakers, e.g. in the Korean War or in the Gulf War of 1990-1991),
I think that Paul Gottfried's column on LewRockwell.com makes some interesting and balanced points on the latter issue of the actual threat that Germany posed in 1917-1918.
That is all.
It does seem to me though, that the real fight here is less over World War II than it is over the present controversy over foreign policy.
I believe that a large part of Buchanan's contrariness about World War II is due to a conviction that it is the single best weapon that interventionists have to argue with. Therefore, if he can attack World War II as being an unnecessary intervention, then by extension all of the lesser interventions that he dislikes become invalid.
Likewise, the neocons and other pro-warriors have a need to see World War II in every conflict, and to see the lesson of World War II to be that we have to confront every petty tyrant with no mercy, before he commits any serious act of aggerssion, lest he become the next Hitler. (Look at how many of Buchanan's critics try to use the naivete of his World War II views as a parallel to his views on the Middle East, with the implication that anything less than a military attack on Iran would be Munich 1938 all over again).
Another supposed lesson from World War II (particularly in contrast to World War I) is the need for unconditional surrender and to crush our enemies completely in any war. The idea seems to be that negotiated surrenders or armistices are not acceptable. (Fortunately enough, this view has not predominated among actual policymakers, e.g. in the Korean War or in the Gulf War of 1990-1991),
I think that Paul Gottfried's column on LewRockwell.com makes some interesting and balanced points on the latter issue of the actual threat that Germany posed in 1917-1918.
That is all.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
When it Comes to Processing Subscriptions, The American Conservative is Full of Morons
I have been trying to renew my subscription to The American Conservative for more than a month. Unfortunately, even though I tell them (when renewing over the phone) that the billing address is different from my mailing address, the payment is not going through.
I tried their secure online server, and again they ask for shipping information, and then ask for credit card number, and tell you there is a problem when the billing and shipping addresses do not match. I could give myself a gift subscription, but I would lose my charter subsciption discount.
Is it too much to ask for these idiots to consider the option that people are not always using the same address for receiving the magazine that they are using for their credit cards? Are the people who run these things so stupid????
Message to TAC: FIX YOUR STUPID BILLING SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!
Update: (I receive most of my subscriptions at my parents' house, because I am in a situation where I may move a lot, and it's been a hassle getting my subscriptions updated in the past. Nonetheless, one of my credit cards I receive at this address, because changing my credit card address is fairly easy. I finally got the subscription renewed online, using a different credit card that still uses my parents' address, but it does not have a rewards program).
That is all.
I tried their secure online server, and again they ask for shipping information, and then ask for credit card number, and tell you there is a problem when the billing and shipping addresses do not match. I could give myself a gift subscription, but I would lose my charter subsciption discount.
Is it too much to ask for these idiots to consider the option that people are not always using the same address for receiving the magazine that they are using for their credit cards? Are the people who run these things so stupid????
Message to TAC: FIX YOUR STUPID BILLING SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!
Update: (I receive most of my subscriptions at my parents' house, because I am in a situation where I may move a lot, and it's been a hassle getting my subscriptions updated in the past. Nonetheless, one of my credit cards I receive at this address, because changing my credit card address is fairly easy. I finally got the subscription renewed online, using a different credit card that still uses my parents' address, but it does not have a rewards program).
That is all.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Thought on TracFone
Recently I lost my mobile phone and had to replace it.
I use Tracfone, and their customer service is very, very good. I think I was dealing with a foreigner, because the guy on the other end had an Indian accent, but he was very polite and helpful.
I just thought it would be nice to note that there are people who still care about service, as an encouragement to those who are discouraged by horror stories such as this one.
That is all.
(Advertisement)
TIP: You can find information about Tracfone as an alternative to more expensive, higher-commitment plans at Tracfone Prepaid Review.
(Advertisement)
I use Tracfone, and their customer service is very, very good. I think I was dealing with a foreigner, because the guy on the other end had an Indian accent, but he was very polite and helpful.
I just thought it would be nice to note that there are people who still care about service, as an encouragement to those who are discouraged by horror stories such as this one.
That is all.
(Advertisement)
TIP: You can find information about Tracfone as an alternative to more expensive, higher-commitment plans at Tracfone Prepaid Review.
(Advertisement)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
John McCain Angry that Black Guy isn't on Welfare
The Washington Times:
Mr. McCain told reporters Thursday he will stay within the public financing system and called the Obama decision a violation of trust that he considers "disturbing to all Americans."
"This is a big deal," the Arizona Republican complained, saying Mr. Obama "completely reversed himself."
Shut up, John.
That is all.
Mr. McCain told reporters Thursday he will stay within the public financing system and called the Obama decision a violation of trust that he considers "disturbing to all Americans."
"This is a big deal," the Arizona Republican complained, saying Mr. Obama "completely reversed himself."
Shut up, John.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
More on Gitmo
I am going to expand a little on Vox Day's article that I mentioned here.
There are two basic definitions of judicial activism: (1) the judicial branch not complying with the wishes of the legislature/executive, or (2) the judicial branch making rulings where the result is predetermined and the goal of the argument is to justify the decision already made. The difference in the two definitions comes from whether one is simply against the Court exercising power because they believe that the more diretly elected/chosen branches should make all of the decisions, or because one is worried htat the Constitution is being read into meaninglessness, with the ultimate law of the land being nothing more than "the law will reflect my values."
There is, I suppose, a third definition, which is simply "making a decision I disagee with."
The second definition is, in my opinion, the best one and the one that is based on the best principles.
The reason why judicial activism is worrisome is because the judges amass large amounts of power to themselves which cannot be easily removed, and reduce the Constitution to "whatever we want it to say." (The other problem is that constitutional questions, which should be at the heart of every branch of the government, are quickly delegated to the judicial branch alone. An example would be during McCain-Feingold when some Congressmen said that they were not concerned with whether or not it was constitutional, the Court would deal with that.
In any case, the problem with the bellyaching over the Court's activism (if that is what it was) on the Guantanamo decision is that there is a genreal feeling that the President had amassed a similar levl of similarly illegitimate power, and so this wqs seen as more of a reaction than an action.
When people fear that the executive branch is not playing fair, whether the other branches play fair in dealing with it becomes much less important to them.
That is all.
There are two basic definitions of judicial activism: (1) the judicial branch not complying with the wishes of the legislature/executive, or (2) the judicial branch making rulings where the result is predetermined and the goal of the argument is to justify the decision already made. The difference in the two definitions comes from whether one is simply against the Court exercising power because they believe that the more diretly elected/chosen branches should make all of the decisions, or because one is worried htat the Constitution is being read into meaninglessness, with the ultimate law of the land being nothing more than "the law will reflect my values."
There is, I suppose, a third definition, which is simply "making a decision I disagee with."
The second definition is, in my opinion, the best one and the one that is based on the best principles.
The reason why judicial activism is worrisome is because the judges amass large amounts of power to themselves which cannot be easily removed, and reduce the Constitution to "whatever we want it to say." (The other problem is that constitutional questions, which should be at the heart of every branch of the government, are quickly delegated to the judicial branch alone. An example would be during McCain-Feingold when some Congressmen said that they were not concerned with whether or not it was constitutional, the Court would deal with that.
In any case, the problem with the bellyaching over the Court's activism (if that is what it was) on the Guantanamo decision is that there is a genreal feeling that the President had amassed a similar levl of similarly illegitimate power, and so this wqs seen as more of a reaction than an action.
When people fear that the executive branch is not playing fair, whether the other branches play fair in dealing with it becomes much less important to them.
That is all.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Changes at Glaivester?
Over the next week or two, if I can find the time, I intend to update my blogroll and to update other things in my sidebars. Later I intend to start figuring out how and whether to make some template changes to Augustawell.
By the way, in case anyone wonders what the "personal use links" at the right hand side of my sidebar are, I put them there so that I could easily access different parts of the blog from my blog. They are for my use, so readers will not find them helpful at all.
I will probably add such a thing to Augustawell before long.
I will have to try to update Rankine 911 at some point as well, and finally start to write on The Defense Force (I have saved the address for two years, but have not added any content).
That is all.
By the way, in case anyone wonders what the "personal use links" at the right hand side of my sidebar are, I put them there so that I could easily access different parts of the blog from my blog. They are for my use, so readers will not find them helpful at all.
I will probably add such a thing to Augustawell before long.
I will have to try to update Rankine 911 at some point as well, and finally start to write on The Defense Force (I have saved the address for two years, but have not added any content).
That is all.
Yet More Augustawell
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)