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.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)